Oral
Answers to
Questions

Wales

The Secretary of State was asked—

Crime Prevention

Anna McMorrin: What steps his Department is taking to help prevent crime in Wales.

David Davies: The Government are committed to investing in our police to drive down crime across Wales. That includes an extra 1,127 police officers for Welsh forces under the police uplift programme. Approximately £9 million has been allocated to Welsh forces through the safer streets fund, targeting neighbourhood crime, violence against women and girls, and antisocial behaviour.

Anna McMorrin: Antisocial behaviour has a devastating impact on communities across Wales and in Cardiff North. My constituent, Sarah, suffered a miscarriage due to the stress of repeated antisocial behaviour. She was not entitled to any support, because this Government consider those who suffer from antisocial behaviour to be second-class victims. My amendment to change that in the Victims and Prisoners Bill was rejected by this Government. How can they claim to prevent crime while failing to support victims?

David Davies: I assure the hon. Lady that victims of antisocial behaviour are as much victims of crime as anyone else. I absolutely stand with victims of antisocial behaviour; it is a matter that we take very seriously indeed. I have not seen the amendment tabled by the hon. Lady, but she must be aware that this Government have brought in longer prison sentences for the most serious crimes, and made it easier for the police to arrest people carrying out crime—matters that the Labour party has voted against.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee.

Stephen Crabb: The chief constable of Dyfed–Powys police recently told the Welsh Affairs Committee that Dyfed-Powys police force now has more police officers than at any time in its history, following the UK Government’s decision to invest in more officers and increase the local number of officers by 154. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating Dyfed-Powys police force on reaching  that milestone, and on all the hard work it does in helping to make Pembrokeshire one of the safest parts of the country?

David Davies: My right hon. Friend will be as pleased as I am that the Government have delivered on their 2019 manifesto commitment to recruit 20,000 extra police officers, and I commend the work of police officers in Dyfed-Powys police. I had the privilege and honour to go to one of the passing out ceremonies recently, and I commend the work that it does.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State for Wales.

Jo Stevens: It is not just antisocial behaviour that is wreaking havoc across Wales. Shoplifting in Wales is also soaring, and in the year to March 2023 it was up by 31%. Why will the Secretary of State’s Government not adopt Labour’s plan to scrap the minimum £200-worth of stolen goods rule, which was introduced by his Government in 2014 and allows gangs of shoplifters to escape punishment and puts shop workers at risk?

David Davies: I agree with the hon. Lady that shoplifting is a serious offence, and repeat shoplifters and those who go out in organised gangs must be dealt with by the full force of the law. That is why I welcome the fact that this Government have brought in longer prison sentences for people carrying out the most serious offences. I do not understand why the hon. Lady will not join the Government in supporting longer prison sentences. Perhaps she should talk to her colleagues in the Welsh Government who seem to be against building any extra prison places.

Jo Stevens: The Secretary of State knows that the prison estate across Wales is not just full, but that overcrowding is significantly above safe limits. With his Government having to commandeer police cells, with judges being told to jail fewer people, and with criminals—including those convicted of assault—being released early on the instruction of his Justice Secretary, how can the Welsh public have any faith that they will be protected?

David Davies: The prison population has increased as a direct result of policies that the Government have implemented, to ensure that those committing the most serious offences spend more time in prison. That is something that the hon. Lady should be supportive of. She needs to talk to her colleagues in the Welsh Government, who have stated clearly in writing that they are completely against building any prison places. This Government are building emergency prison places and filling up prisons, because people who commit serious offences deserve to go to prison. The Labour party in the Welsh Government is saying clearly that it is totally opposed to building any extra prisons anywhere.

Economic Links: Wales and the North-west

Scott Benton: What steps the Government are taking to improve economic links between Wales and the north-west.

James Davies: This Government are committed to strengthening the economy of north Wales and north-west England. We have recently announced that we will invest £36 billion in Network North, including £1 billion to electrify the north Wales main line. That will improve connectivity across the region, bringing many parts of north Wales within one hour of Manchester and Liverpool by rail.

Scott Benton: The announcement of the electrification of the north Wales main line will help to improve transport links between this region and the north-west of England, supporting economic growth, tourism and jobs across both areas. Does my hon. Friend agree that residents across Wales and my constituents in Blackpool will see real improvements in their local transport infrastructure as part of their share of this £36 billion that is available?

James Davies: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. North Wales often feels overlooked by the Welsh Government. Indeed, the Welsh Government have said that the electrification of the north Wales line is not their priority. Just as it was Conservative Governments who built key elements of the A55 in the 1980s and 1990s, we now see a Conservative Government investing further in the infrastructure and prospects of north Wales and north-west England.

Conor McGinn: Connectivity is key to underpinning that economic growth, and the railway line between north Wales, through my constituency in St Helens and on to Manchester should epitomise that, but unfortunately it does not seem to be working at the minute. It is frequently overcrowded, and there are cancellations at the Manchester end and at the Chester end. Will the Minister speak to his colleagues in the Department for Transport as well as Transport for Wales, so that we might make some progress and make sure that my constituents can get to work and this line can deliver economic growth for the north-west and north Wales?

James Davies: Of course, improving rail is not simply about the rail infrastructure; it is also about the train operating companies and how they operate. The hon. Gentleman is right that Transport for Wales has struggled from time to time. I can reassure him that I do have discussions with it. In fact, I am also meeting the rail Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) later today, when I will reiterate those concerns.

Lindsay Hoyle: I welcome the shadow Minister to her new position.

Jessica Morden: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Strong economic links are dependent on the Government actually having an economic plan, but the Conservatives’ track record speaks for itself. They cancelled the electrification of the main line to Swansea, they are spending half a billion pounds but still potentially making up to 3,000 steelworkers redundant and their pitiful semiconductor strategy does not even give us a bit part on the world stage. Why should anyone believe  that their latest promises made for north Wales at a desperate party conference are worth the fag packet they are written on?

James Davies: I welcome the hon. Member to her position. She shares Welsh lessons with me, and I hope she will continue to do so. I urge her to be somewhat more positive about the £1 billion that has been announced for infrastructure development in north Wales by means of the electrification. Also, in terms of the steel industry at Port Talbot, the half a billion pounds has saved many jobs and means that decarbonisation can occur.

Liz Saville-Roberts: HS2 is
“going to benefit Wales, it’s going to benefit people in North Wales who will benefit from better access at Crewe to London.”
That was the Secretary of State’s central argument for withholding billions of pounds from Wales by claiming that HS2 benefits us. Now that the link at Crewe is another casualty of Tory chaos, will Wales Office Ministers stay true to their own logic and urge the Treasury to class HS2 as English-only?

James Davies: As the right hon. Lady knows, rail infrastructure is not devolved. I would argue that investment in Great Britain’s rail infrastructure is of value to those in north Wales and the rest of Wales. Furthermore, HS2 is an important connection to the west midlands from London. Passengers from London to north Wales are likely to still use that.

Liz Saville-Roberts: We all know that the money that has been committed is illustrative. In a major boost to Plaid Cymru’s campaign, the National Infrastructure Commission for Wales has proposed devolving the Crown estate and reinvesting profits in communities through a sovereign wealth fund. The commission criticised the current system of wealth transfer from the poorest country in Britain to Westminster as “illogical and bizarre”. Whose side is the Minister on: Welsh communities or a system that extracts our natural wealth?

James Davies: We have had this discussion on previous occasions in various settings, but I would argue that the Crown estate allows this country to share risks and opportunities that it deals with. It does a fantastic job and I simply do not agree.

Cross-border Healthcare: Welsh Government Policy

Andrea Leadsom: What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential impact of Welsh Government policy on health authorities on cross-border healthcare.

Robin Millar: What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential impact of Welsh Government policy on health authorities on cross-border healthcare.

James Davies: Of course, I work within the NHS in north-east Wales and west Cheshire and see the stark realities of the disparity in healthcare services between the two. It is concerning that the Welsh Government  have missed their target to eliminate two-year waits in most specialties and that more than 27,000 patients have been waiting over two years for treatment in Wales, compared with circa 280 in the whole of England. The Health Secretary has offered to consider requests from the Welsh Government to use alternate providers in England to reduce waiting lists and the distress that they bring.

Andrea Leadsom: With the Welsh Labour Government facing cuts to their NHS as a decision of their own, does the Minister not find it extraordinary that they are looking at spending £122 million on new politicians and £33 million on a blanket 20 mph speed limit that nobody voted for in Wales?

James Davies: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. It is scandalous that the Labour Welsh Government are prioritising spending on more politicians in Cardiff Bay as well as an unpopular 20 mph default speed limit. Their decisions mean less funding for the NHS, education and other important devolved services. They have the potential instead to invest in important capital projects such as the Royal Alexandra Hospital in Rhyl. They must re-examine their agenda.

Robin Millar: It gets worse: the UK Government have twice offered the Welsh Labour Government help in reducing patient waiting lists for important medical procedures, but neither offer has been taken up. Will my hon. Friend the Minister confirm that, in fact, that offer still stands and that patients in Wales who are stuck and suffering on waiting lists have not been forgotten by the UK Government?

James Davies: Having spoken with the Department of Health and Social Care, I can confirm that the offer still stands. My hon. Friend will find it of interest to know that the Labour Welsh Government did write in response to the latest offer several weeks after that offer was made. Unfortunately, the Minister did not confirm whether they would accept the offer. In the interests of tens of thousands of patients, I strongly encourage them to do so.

Cost of Living

Chris Elmore: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the cost of living in Wales.

Patricia Gibson: What assessment he has made of the impact of increases in the cost of living on people in Wales.

David Davies: I have regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues on a range of issues, including the cost of living. The Government have made certain that the state pension, benefits and the minimum wage have all risen in line with inflation. Last winter, the Government’s energy support schemes saw them paying about half the average fuel bills for homeowners across the United Kingdom.

Chris Elmore: The Bridgend food bank and the Baobab Bach food pantry are running out of food. My constituents in Ogmore and those across the Bridgend borough  literally cannot afford to pay for the weekly shop. What work is the Secretary of State doing to tackle the significant access-to-food crisis that is impacting constituents in the Bridgend county borough and right across Wales?

David Davies: As I have already mentioned, the Government have made sure that pensions, benefits and the minimum wage have risen in line with inflation. There have been other payments as well, with £900 to households on benefits, £300 to pensioners and £100 to those in households where there have been disabilities. The Government have made certain at all times to prioritise the least well off. May I respectfully suggest that the hon. Gentleman should listen to the earlier questions and suggest that the Welsh Government stop spending money on extra politicians and put that back into communities where it is needed?

Patricia Gibson: Polling of 2,000 people by Public Health Wales found that about eight in 10 Welsh citizens are either worried or very worried about the rising cost of living, with almost half saying that it will have a negative impact on their mental health. Similar concerns have been expressed in Scotland. What consideration have the Secretary of State and his Cabinet colleagues given to the SNP’s call for a £400 energy rebate as winter approaches?

David Davies: As I said, in addition to the Government’s priority on supporting the least well-off and the fact that the Government paid around half of people’s energy bills during the last winter, we will continue to prioritise those who are having difficulties. If the hon. Lady is really worried about a cost of living crisis and the impact on energy, she will do well to revisit her party’s policy of getting rid of the oil and gas industry in the UK, including in Scotland—something that would cost 200,000 jobs and have a terrible impact on energy prices for homeowners across the United Kingdom.

Sarah Atherton: The Wrexham-Flintshire investment zone bid could bring huge benefits to my region, including more and better-paid jobs. An investment zone requires collaboration between the Welsh and UK Governments. There is a possibility that the UK Government could support two zones in Wales, but the Welsh Government have yet to give me a commitment to a second zone. If they do, will the UK Government also commit?

David Davies: I can assure my hon. Friend that I have made a very strong case to Cabinet colleagues for two investment zones in Wales. She is right that we need the co-operation of the Welsh Labour Government. I suggest that she, and any Members who represent north Wales, write to the Welsh Labour Government’s economic development Minister and suggest that Welsh Government prioritise two investment zones for Wales. We would be delighted to work with them when they get around to doing that.

Strength of the Union

Deidre Brock: What recent assessment he has made of the strength of the Union.

Hywel Williams: What recent assessment he has made of the strengthofthe Union.

David Davies: Our United Kingdom is stronger than ever. It is a testament to the strength of the Union that the UK Government have been able to support people across the country, including with £94 billion to respond to cost of living challenges.

Deidre Brock: At the Welsh Affairs Committee this morning, the First Minister Mark Drakeford blamed the UK Government for not giving adequate financial support to the Welsh Government in times of high inflation and a cost of living crisis. Can the Secretary of State tell us how much his Department is spending on promoting the UK Government in Wales? Why does he think that is a better use of taxpayers’ money than funding services for the people of Wales? I am happy to receive an answer by email if he does not have that information to hand.

David Davies: First, I can assure the hon. Lady that the Welsh Labour Government are receiving a record-breaking settlement of more than £18 billion, and 20% more per head to spend on public services than is spent in England. Perhaps the First Minister should explain why we have longer NHS waiting lists in Wales and why education standards are lower. As far as spending on public affairs and promotion is concerned, I can assure the hon. Lady that a far greater amount is spent by the Welsh Labour Government than is ever spent by the Wales Office. Frankly, the proof of the strength of the Union is demonstrated by the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) has joined the Conservative and Unionist party, and she is very welcome.

Hywel Williams: I have raised the damaging effect of the UK’s Brexit on the port of Holyhead and the north Wales economy in this Chamber 26 times. Holyhead has been disadvantaged by the lack of a green lane for exports to Northern Ireland. In August, at last, His Majesty's Revenue and Customs confirmed to me that there will now be a green lane for goods travelling from Wales to Northern Ireland through Holyhead and the Republic. I emphasise, as a precaution, that this is not a freeport issue—the Secretary of State is very keen on that. Rather, what specifically is he doing to promote and enable those new procedures for Holyhead?

David Davies: I did not quite hear all that, but on the port in Ynys Môn, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will take some comfort from the fact that the United Kingdom economy has grown more quickly outside the European Union than that of many nations that have remained in it. The Government have shown their absolute commitment to both north Wales and Ynys Môn through their development of a freeport project for the area and the announcement of £1 billion for electrification of the north Wales railway line, which will help to bring jobs and investment into north Wales.

Alun Cairns: Barry is Wales’s largest town, but it has been ignored by the Welsh Government for decades. It has significant regeneration challenges, like many places. I congratulate  my right hon. Friend on awarding Barry towns regeneration status, but can he reassure me that that does not preclude Barry from benefiting from levelling up funding?

David Davies: Obviously, I welcome the announcement, but my right hon. Friend is far too modest, since he has been knocking on the door of the Wales Office and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities for a very long time to demand extra funding for Barry. He makes a very strong case for that, and I assure him that the UK Government will continue to listen to him.

Simon Baynes: Cross-border transport links between Wales and England are a key part of the strength of the Union. Does my right hon. Friend agree that cross-border projects, such as the Pant and Llanymynech bypass and the longer term ambition to dual the A483-A5 passing through Clwyd South and North Shropshire, are vital?

David Davies: The United Kingdom Government are absolutely determined to support infrastructure projects in Wales. We have done so through the levelling-up funds. It will happen again through the shared prosperity fund and it has, of course, been happening through the growth deals. What we do need is a Welsh Labour Government that will support infrastructure. That is why I find it so disappointing that the Welsh Labour Government have ruled out building any new roads ever again. It worries me greatly that that is seen as a blueprint for the rest of the United Kingdom.

Energy Costs

Tonia Antoniazzi: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on energy costs for (a) households and (b) businesses in Wales.

James Davies: The Secretary of State and I have regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues on a range of issues, including energy costs. The Government spent nearly £40 billion protecting households and businesses from high energy bills over last winter, meaning that between October 2022 and June 2023, a typical household saw half of their energy bills paid for by the Government.

Tonia Antoniazzi: The Government did not listen to the renewable energy sector, which repeatedly warned them that the budget set for this year’s offshore wind auction was too low to attract bidders to develop offshore wind in the Celtic sea. Can the Minister tell the House why that advice was ignored, leading to not a single bid being made?

James Davies: What I can tell the hon. Lady is that it is an issue of discussion that the Secretary of State and I are engaged with. We understand the importance of floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea and it will progress in due course.

Speed Limits

David Duguid: What discussions he has had with the Welsh Government on the potential impact of the Restricted Roads (20 mph Speed Limit) (Wales) Order 2022 on the Welsh economy.

Marco Longhi: What discussions he has had with the Welsh Government on the potential impact of the Restricted Roads (20 mph Speed Limit) (Wales) Order 2022 on the Welsh economy.

David Davies: No sensible person would oppose a 20 mph speed limit where there is a case to be made on the basis of safety outside hospitals, old people’s homes or schools, but the blanket decision by the Welsh Government, which has been opposed by over 460,000 signatories to the largest petition in the Senedd’s history, is deeply unpopular, deeply expensive and completely wrong.

David Duguid: Given that more than 450,000 people in Wales have signed an online petition against the Labour Welsh Government’s blanket 20 mph roll-out, does my right hon. Friend agree that devolved Administrations across the United Kingdom should listen to the people and the communities they serve, rather than their own narrow centralised agenda?

David Davies: I agree completely with what my hon. Friend says. The Welsh Labour Government need to listen to what people have said about this and they need to listen also to all those who are opposed to this ridiculous war on motorists, which is not just about a 20 mph speed limit but a block on any new roads being built and extra road charges.

Marco Longhi: Mr Speaker—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Can I just say to Conservative Members that the hon. Member was in the middle of asking a question? It is disrespectful to your own side. You should think about what you are doing. People should wait. Just because you want to cheer somebody coming in. Do it at the right time. That is totally inappropriate.

Marco Longhi: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Labour likes to showcase Welsh Labour as its blueprint for the rest of the United Kingdom. Does the Secretary of State not agree that this is yet more evidence of its war against motorists wherever they are: Wales, Dudley North or the rest of the United Kingdom?

David Davies: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We need to be very careful of this blueprint for Britain, which includes a ban on new roads, a ban on meal deals, a tourism tax, road charges, over £100 million being spent on more politicians, a £1,600 minimum wage being paid to some asylum seekers and a ban on news channels in the Assembly that Senedd Members disagree with. That is not a blueprint for Britain; it is a recipe for disaster. I hope the people of Wales will take note and vote Conservative in the next election.

Mortgage Interest Rate Increases

David Linden: What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the impact of increases in mortgage interest rates on homeowners in Wales.

James Davies: The Government recognise that this is a concerning time for mortgage holders, especially those who are due to come to the end of a fixed deal in the immediate future. We are supporting borrowers who  are struggling with their mortgage payments through the new mortgage charter. It sets out the standards that signatory lenders will adopt, including new flexibilities to help customers manage their mortgage payments over a short period.

David Linden: Throughout Scotland, people are paying the price of the Westminster-made cost of living crisis as a result of this Conservative Government and the actions of the Tories in crashing the economy last year. Will the Government bring forward that mortgage interest relief scheme for my constituents, and perhaps even for those in East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow?

James Davies: The Government have, of course, provided “support for mortgage interest” loans for those receiving income-related benefits, and the pre-action protocol helps to make repossessions less likely. That is in addition to the action that I have already outlined.

Prime Minister

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Chris Law: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 18 October.

Rishi Sunak: I know that the whole House will have been shocked by the scenes at Al-Ahli Hospital. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has said, we are working independently and with our allies to find out what has happened. I am sure that Members will raise further questions about this during today’s session.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Chris Law: May I associate myself, and the whole of my party here, with what has been said about the horrors and the unfolding tragedy of last night’s bombing of the hospital in Gaza?
The Rafah border crossing from besieged Gaza into Egypt has been hit by several Israeli airstrikes, causing absolute terror to those who urgently need the crossing to be open in order to escape. Nadia El-Nakla, an elected councillor in my city of Dundee and the wife of Scotland’s First Minister, has had to take calls from her parents Elizabeth and Maged, who, like all others trapped in Gaza, have been describing the horrors of death and indiscriminate killings everywhere. Members of Nadia’s family were hit yesterday by a rocket from a drone, and her mother was saying her final goodbyes this morning, adding:
“last night was the end for me, better if my heart stops and then I will be at peace, I can’t take another night.”
With military action intensifying and the death toll rising rapidly, the Prime Minister’s first responsibility must be to bring British citizens home. Can he please give his personal assurance that every single step is being taken to open the Rafah crossing, both for humanitarian aid and to enable UK nationals like Nadia’s family to flee?

Rishi Sunak: The thoughts of everyone in the House will of course be with the families affected by what is happening in Israel and in Gaza, and I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance: we are doing everything in our power to ensure the safety of British nationals who are caught up in all this. That includes my calls with leaders across the region, particularly the conversations about opening the Rafah border crossing—which is why I made talking to President Sisi a priority last week—and we continue to engage in dialogue with both the Israelis and the Egyptians about the crossing.

Sajid Javid: I am proud to live in the most successful multi-racial democracy in the world, but it saddens me, and I think it shames the whole House, that British Jews have been subjected to such vile abuse and hatred in recent days. Antisemitism and all hate crimes fly in the face of British values, and we should not allow events abroad, no matter how horrific they are, to be used to sow seeds of division in our own country. While I welcome all the actions that my right hon. Friend is taking to fight hate crime and to bring people together, may I ask him to consider urgently an immediate and specific policy of revoking the visas of any foreign national who commits an act of antisemitism or any other hate crime?

Rishi Sunak: I completely agree with my right hon. Friend, who has himself done so much over the years to fight antisemitism. The increase in the number of such incidents that we have seen over the past week is utterly sickening, and this Government will do whatever it takes to keep our Jewish community safe. We have provided an additional £3 million to support the Community Security Trust, we are working with the police to ensure that hate crime and the glorification of terror are met by the full force of the law, and under our existing immigration rules we have the power to cancel a person’s presence in the UK if it is not conducive to the public good. We will not tolerate this hatred—not in this country, not in this century.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Leader of the Opposition.

Keir Starmer: Can I start by warmly welcoming my hon. Friend the new Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Michael Shanks)? The news last night of hundreds killed at the Baptist hospital in Gaza is incredibly distressing, but it is much worse for the people of Gaza. Their fear that there is no place of safety is profound. International law must be upheld, and that means hospitals and civilian lives must be protected. Last night the Foreign Secretary said that the UK will work with our allies to find out what has happened. I know that this only happened last night, but can the Prime Minister please tell us when he thinks he might be able to update the House on progress with that work?

Rishi Sunak: I know that the whole House will have been shocked by the scenes at Al-Ahli Hospital. Any loss of innocent life is a dreadful tragedy and everyone will be thinking both of those who have lost their lives and of the families they leave behind. We should not rush to judgment before we have all the facts on this awful situation. Every Member will know that the words we say here have an impact beyond this House.
This morning, I met the National Security Adviser and the Chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee, and I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that our intelligence services have been rapidly analysing the evidence to independently establish the facts. We are not in a position at this point to say more than that, but I can tell him that we are working at pace and co-operating and collaborating with our allies on this issue as we look to get to the bottom of the situation. We will also continue all our efforts to get humanitarian aid into the region.

Keir Starmer: I thank the Prime Minister for his answer. The terrible news last night came as we are still mourning the terrorist attack on Israel last week, with Jews taken hostage, mutilated, slaughtered. Yesterday I met the families of some of the British hostages held by Hamas. Every minute of every hour of every day, they hope for good news but fear the worst. They know that the lives of their loved ones are in the hands of murderers. It is unimaginable agony. Israel has a right—a duty—to defend itself from Hamas, keep its people safe and bring the hostages home, but is it not clear that if Hamas had a single concern for human life, a single concern for the safety of the Palestinian people, they would never have taken these hostages, and that they should release them immediately?

Rishi Sunak: It is important for us consistently to remember that Israel has suffered a shockingly brutal terrorist attack, and it is Hamas, and Hamas alone, who are responsible for this conflict. Our thoughts are rightly with those who have been taken hostage and their families. The distress they are feeling will be unimaginable for all those affected. I will be meeting some of the families and offering them all the support of the British Government to get their relatives home. We are working around the clock with our partners and allies to secure their freedom and, importantly, in among my other regional calls, I spoke specifically with the Emir of Qatar yesterday on this very issue, which we discussed at length. The Qatari Government are taking a lead in working intensely to help release hostages using their contacts in the region, and we are working closely with them to ensure the safe return of the British hostages.

Keir Starmer: Yesterday I also met charities with staff working in Gaza and heard their accounts of the harrowing humanitarian crisis: children fleeing their homes; hospitals barely able to function. The lights are going out, and the innocent civilians of Gaza are terrified that they will die in the darkness, out of sight. International law must always be followed. Hamas are not the Palestinian people, and the Palestinian people are not Hamas. Does the Prime Minister agree that medicines, food, fuel and water must get into Gaza immediately? This is an urgent situation, and innocent Palestinians need to know that the world is not just simply watching, but acting to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe.

Rishi Sunak: As I said on Monday, an acute humanitarian crisis is unfolding to which we must respond. It is right that we support the Palestinian people, because they are victims of Hamas too. That is why we have provided a further £10 million in humanitarian aid for people in the region, and we are working on pre-emptively moving aid and relief teams to Egypt, specifically to the  el-Arish airfield. We are working with local partners like the Egyptian Red Crescent and the United Nations, primarily, and deploying Navy assets to the region, as well as exploring how we can support logistical requirements.
I have also raised the issue of humanitarian access, as a priority, in all my conversations with every leader in the region. We will continue to work with them to get aid to where it is needed as quickly as possible.

Keir Starmer: As has been alluded to, since Hamas’s terrorist attack our country has seen a disgusting rise in antisemitism: Jewish businesses attacked, Jewish schools marked with red paint and Jewish families hiding who they are. And we have seen an appalling surge in Islamophobia: racist graffiti, mosques forced to ramp up security, and British Muslims and Palestinians spoken to as if they are terrorists. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that every Member of this House has a duty to work in their constituency and across the country to say no to this hate and to ensure that every British Jew and every British Muslim knows they can live their life free from fear and free from discrimination here in their own country?

Rishi Sunak: All of us in this House can play our part in stamping out those who seek to cause division and hate in our society. We will make sure that we continue funding the Community Security Trust and the equivalent protective security grant that protects mosques and other places of worship for the Islamic community in the UK. That funding was increased earlier this year. We will also remain in dialogue with the police to make sure they are aware of the full tools at their disposal to arrest those who perpetrate hate crime and who incite racial or other religious violence. There is no place for that in our society, and I know this House will stand united in making sure those who do this face the full force of the law.

Keir Starmer: We do not want this conflict to harm us here at home, and we do not want it to escalate in the middle east, where there has been too much bloodshed, too much darkness, for too long. A two-state solution—a Palestinian state alongside a safe and secure Israel—feels more distant than ever, but it remains the only way through. Does the Prime Minister agree that, because hope is at its thinnest, we must work our hardest to ensure that the voices of division and despair are sidelined and that, however difficult it seems, the hope of a political path to peace is maintained?

Rishi Sunak: It is precisely because it is that vision of a more hopeful, peaceful future that Hamas have tried to destroy that we must redouble our efforts to try to bring that future about. In all the conversations that the Foreign Secretary and I have had with regional leaders, we have emphasised our commitment to making sure that we make progress on all the avenues that will lead towards that peaceful future. That has been a feature of our dialogue, and I am confident there is willingness in the region not to escalate this crisis beyond dealing with Hamas, the terrorist organisation, and to strive very hard towards a future where Palestinians and Israelis can co-exist peacefully, side by side, and look forward to a future filled with dignity, security and prosperity.

Keir Starmer: This is a crisis where lives hang in the balance and where the enemies of peace and democracy would like nothing more than for us to become divided and to abandon our values. Does the Prime Minister agree that, during this grave crisis, the House must strive to speak with one voice in condemnation of terror, in support of Israel’s right to self-defence and for the dignity of all human life, which cannot be protected without humanitarian access to those suffering in Gaza and the constant maintenance of the rule of international law?

Rishi Sunak: I agree. We will, in this House, speak with one voice in condemning Hamas for perpetrating a shockingly brutal terrorist attack and causing untold suffering for many. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, we stand united in supporting Israel’s right to defend itself, to protect its people and to act against terrorism. Unlike Hamas, the Israeli President has make it very clear that Israel’s armed forces will operate in accordance with international law. We will continue to urge the Israelis to take every precaution to avoid harming civilians, while remembering, importantly, that it is Hamas who are cruelly embedding themselves in civilian populations.

Andy Carter: May I associate myself with the words of the Prime Minister, and commend him and the Foreign Secretary for the work they are doing to find a peaceful settlement in the middle east?
May I also welcome the Prime Minister’s decision to provide £12 billion-worth of funding for east-west high-speed rail lines between Manchester and Liverpool, and his focus on great northern towns as well as cities in the north? Will he ensure that towns such as Warrington benefit fully from this rail upgrade and that a hub station at Warrington Bank Quay linking Northern Powerhouse Rail to the west coast main line remains a key part of the Network North?

Rishi Sunak: I thank my hon. Friend for his continued campaign to improve rail services in Warrington. He is right: we will be investing £12 billion to better connect Manchester and Liverpool. That would allow for the delivery of Northern Powerhouse Rail, exactly as previously planned, including high-speed lines, which would provide better rail connections for the people living in northern towns such as Warrington. I know that he will be discussing this further when he meets the rail Minister.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Scottish National party leader.

Stephen Flynn: We all continue to unequivocally condemn the abhorrent terrorist attack on the Jewish people and the Israeli state. We fully support the defeat of Hamas and, of course, the safe return of all hostages who have been taken. So, too, I hope, do we all share the same common humanity of protecting civilians and condemning any acts of collective punishment against the Palestinian people. In that regard, many of the images emanating from Gaza in recent days will shock us all to the core, so may I ask the Prime Minister: will he join those of us on these Benches and call for an immediate ceasefire in the region?

Rishi Sunak: We believe that Israel does have a right to defend itself, to protect its people and to act against terrorism and ensure that the awful attack we have seen from Hamas cannot happen again. Unlike Hamas, the Israelis, including the President, have made it clear that their armed forces will operate in accordance with international law. We will continue to urge the Israelis to take every precaution to avoid harming civilians.

Stephen Flynn: My ask for a ceasefire is done with all sincerity, not only in order to protect civilians, but to ensure that we have the safe creation of humanitarian corridors, which will allow not only for food, water and vital medicines to get into Gaza, but for innocent civilians caught up in this terrible conflict to flee. In respect of those who wish to flee, may I ask the Prime Minister what early consideration, if any, his Government have given to the creation of a refugee resettlement scheme akin to those previously put in place for Syrian nationals, Afghani nationals and, of course, Ukrainian nationals?

Rishi Sunak: I am proud that we are already one of the most significant contributors to the United Nations’ efforts to support Palestinian refugees; our funding supports about 5.8 million refugees annually, and on Monday we announced a significant increase in our funding of aid to the region, including to the UN to support refugees. With regard to humanitarian aid, as I said before, we are already working through pre-emptively moving aid and relief teams into the region. But, critically, the most important thing is to open up access for that aid to get into Gaza, which is why our conversations with the Egyptians and others are so critical. We continue to work closely with allies to find every way to get that aid to the people who need it as quickly as possible.

Stephen Crabb: Last night, sections of the British media were reporting as fact that it was Israeli rockets that had landed and attacked the Al-Ahli Hospital, relying on information supplied by officials in terrorist-controlled Gaza. The headlines have since been rewritten, but the outpouring of Jew hate on social media overnight was vile. So will the Prime Minister please make the point again that the way that this conflict is being reported has massive implications for our Jewish community and that any information coming from Hamas must be treated with a degree of scrutiny and cross-examination that is, sadly, sometimes lacking?

Rishi Sunak: I commend my right hon. Friend for his excellent intervention. He is absolutely right that we should not rush to judgment before we have all the facts on the appalling situation that we saw yesterday, particularly given the sensitivity that he raises and the impact on communities here, but also across the region. As I said, it is incumbent on all of those in positions of responsibility in this House and outside in the media to recognise that the words we say will have an impact, and we should be careful with them.
We are working with our allies to establish the truth of what has happened. We will do that robustly and independently, but my right hon. Friend is right to point out that in the same way as we do not treat what comes out of the Kremlin as the gospel truth, we should not do that with Hamas.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I associate my party with the comments made in relation to the deplorable loss of innocent human life in both Israel and Gaza.
Having left the European Union, building links and co-operation across the four nations of our United Kingdom can only strengthen the Union. Will the Prime Minister agree with my proposal for the creation of an east-west council, to bring together all parts of the UK family to discuss and collaborate on trade and the many other opportunities presented by the Union?

Rishi Sunak: The right hon. Gentleman made a powerful case in his conference speech last weekend for a strong, functioning Northern Ireland within our Union. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has had the opportunity to discuss our shared commitment to the Union with the right hon. Gentleman’s party over recent weeks and months, and I am grateful for the constructive approach and tone taken in those discussions. There is considerable merit in the idea of a new east-west council to further strengthen the Union, and I look forward to exploring the issue further with him and his colleagues.

Martin Vickers: Following my right hon. Friend’s decision to reallocate funding from HS2, may I urge him to consider a number of projects that will boost the economy and improve the quality of life for my constituents and others in northern Lincolnshire? In order for access to the Humber freeport to be improved, the A15 between Lincoln and the A180 needs to be dualled. In particular, the A180 causes no end of problems for residents in nearby villages because of its concrete surface, so I urge him to deal with its resurfacing. Finally, Mr Speaker—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Finally, I think the AA atlas has run out.

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend has been a long-standing champion for Cleethorpes, and particularly for the importance of strong regional transport connections. Network North will see Hull fully connected to the northern powerhouse network, which I know he will welcome, and north-east Lincolnshire will share in a brand new £2.5 billion fund to support local transport connections, perhaps including many or some of the ones he mentions. I know he will have been delighted to see LNER run a test service to Cleethorpes earlier this year, and I can assure him that the Department for Transport is continuing work to see a direct service to London reinstated.

Janet Daby: Government Members have said the way to fix the economic crisis that they have caused is to cut state spending by £200 billion and to freeze NHS budgets. When will the Prime Minister stand up to the extremists in his party and condemn those ideas?

Rishi Sunak: Weeks after I became Prime Minister, we announced a significant increase of almost £14 billion for the NHS and social care. We followed that up with the first long-term workforce plan in the NHS’s history, to ensure that we train the doctors and  nurses we need for the future. That demonstrates our commitment to the NHS. We also, I am pleased to say, reached a settlement with over 1 million NHS workers, including our nurses, for a full, fair and affordable pay rise.

Desmond Swayne: Aid poured into Gaza in 2005 when Israel withdrew. Enlightened governance could have made a success of it. It is Hamas that has turned it into hell, is it not?

Rishi Sunak: I know that this is a subject on which my right hon. Friend speaks with authority, and I thank him for his previous work in the area. With regard to our aid funding, as the Foreign Secretary will outline later, we have very stringent governance in place to make sure that it is spent on the humanitarian needs that we want to address. I also agree with him that there is one person and one person alone that is responsible for the atrocities that we are seeing, and that is Hamas.

Richard Foord: On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, may I associate myself and my party with all the comments about the protection of innocent civilians today wherever they may be?
A whole wing of Seaton Hospital in Devon is earmarked for demolition under this Government. The proposal to demolish this wing is an insult to the communities that raised millions of pounds to help fund the upkeep of services at that hospital. The space was given to NHS Property Services, but, thanks to the charging policy introduced by the Conservatives, that company is demanding £300,000 in rent. Will the Prime Minister let NHS Property Services hand over the space to health charities and community interest groups so that we can stop a wrecking ball going through Seaton Hospital?

Rishi Sunak: As the hon. Gentleman knows, decisions about hospital infrastructure are a matter for the NHS. I am told that Devon Integrated Care Board is working together with NHS Property Services and local community healthcare providers to establish a future sustainable use for the currently vacant space. May I also take the opportunity to commend the work that my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Simon Jupp) is doing on this topic?

Mark Eastwood: I would like to thank the Prime Minister for his commitment to improve transport links in the north. However, to ensure that a complete strategic approach to rail links is achieved across the region, it should include the much-needed upgrade to the Penistone line running from Huddersfield, through my constituency, to Sheffield—an upgrade that my hon. Friends the Members for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) and for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates), who are sat with me, would also like to see delivered. With that in mind, will my right hon. Friend commit to including the Penistone line in the Network North plans?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is a fantastic campaigner for the Penistone line rail upgrade. I know that my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary is conducting a corridor development study given the new  commitments to services on the Sheffield to Leeds and Sheffield to Hull lines, and, as part of that exercise, will consider enhancing the service on the Huddersfield to Penistone and Sheffield line, and I know that my hon. Friend will discuss this further when he meets the rail Minister.

Karin Smyth: In Bristol South, around a third of children live in poverty, most of them in working households. It is about the same as in Tamworth, where the Conservative candidate for tomorrow’s election made foul-mouthed comments about families struggling to make ends meet. This is the Prime Minister’s Conservative party. Will he condemn that candidate’s comments?

Rishi Sunak: I am proud of our record supporting people with the cost of living. Thanks to the actions that we have taken, we have paid half of the typical family’s energy bill last winter, frozen fuel duty and boosted the national living wage to record levels, and 8 million people across this country are now receiving direct cost of living payments worth £900. While we are helping people with the cost of living, all Labour’s ideas are doing are costing them a fortune.

Dehenna Davison: Mr Speaker, you may notice that many ladies in the Chamber today are wearing pink for breast cancer awareness, but roughly 15% of those with breast cancer are diagnosed with lobular cancer, a little known strain that is harder to detect, has worse outcomes and has no dedicated treatment. I am working with Dr Susan Michaelis at the lobular moonshot project to campaign for a dedicated research stream for lobular cancer. Will the Prime Minister meet with us to discuss this and how the Government can help us to save more lives from breast cancer?

Rishi Sunak: I thank my hon. Friend for all her work in this area. Early diagnosis of cancer is key and the NHS “Help Us, Help You” campaign is seeking to address the barriers deterring patients from accessing diagnosis and treatment. Thanks to treatments and faster detection, survival rates for breast cancer are now increasing. Last year, more than 1 million scans were carried out, preventing an estimated 1,300 deaths from breast cancer. This Breast Cancer Awareness Month, I encourage anyone who is invited to take up the offer of breast cancer screening.

Stewart McDonald: Of course the sadism of Hamas can only be condemned, and there is no question of Israel’s right to defence and security, but international law is very clear that acting against international law in response to terrorism is unjustified, so in all the packages that the Prime Minister has announced vis-à-vis humanitarian aid, and the military package that he announced last week, can he tell the House how the Government will ensure that international law is adhered to, beyond just statements from Israel’s head of state?

Rishi Sunak: The hon. Member talked about our military assets. Let me be crystal clear: the assets that we have moved into the region are not there in any combat capacity. They are there for two reasons: first and foremost, to provide surveillance to ensure that this  crisis does not escalate and that arms are not being sent to entities like Hezbollah—that is what our surveillance aircraft are currently doing, and indeed the next set of assets arriving this week will also help—but also to provide contingency support for humanitarian assistance as and when required in the coming days and weeks.

Jill Mortimer: On Sunday, Terrence Carney, a 70-year-old Hartlepudlian, was murdered by an asylum seeker. The people are afraid and angry. Every week, my office is besieged by asylum seekers. My staff are intimidated by young men. The fact is that most of them are illegal migrants who should be expelled. My thoughts and sympathies are with Mr Carney’s family and friends, and all my constituents affected by this heinous crime. However, sympathy is not enough. They deserve action, and I am demanding it. Will the Prime Minister take action? Will he make sure that enforcement is delivered? Will he ensure that people who have no right to be here are expelled? Enough is enough. I want these people out of Hartlepool now.

Rishi Sunak: As my hon. Friend knows, I am unable to comment on cases that are currently before the court, but I join her in expressing my sympathies to the families affected. I reassure her that the Government are doing everything that we can to tackle illegal migration and the harm that it causes by removing those with no right to be here in the UK. We have excellent long-standing relationships to return people to many countries. We are returning thousands more people this year than we have in the past, and we will continue to use every avenue at our disposal to ensure that it is only this country and this Government who decide who comes here, and not criminal gangs.

Gavin Newlands: We have all been horrified by events in Israel and Gaza, and it is right that we condemn utterly the inhuman terrorism of Hamas. That should also be the case for any obscenities and war crimes carried out by the Israeli defence force. Both the UN and Médecins Sans Frontières have described the siege of Gaza and the withholding of water from its people as collective punishment—a war crime under the Geneva convention—yet this week both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have supported Israel’s right to do so. Why?

Rishi Sunak: Quite simply put, Israel suffered from a brutal terrorist attack at the hands of Hamas, and it is absolutely right that Israel has a right to defend itself, root out terrorism, and ensure that such an act does not happen again. As Israel’s President has said, its military will operate within international law, but the hon. Gentleman failed to acknowledge that it is Hamas who embed themselves inside civilian populations and put innocent civilians in harm’s way. He would do well to remember that.

Crispin Blunt: My right hon. Friend has been absolutely right to lead the nation in reassuring the British Jewish community in the wake of the utterly appalling atrocity visited upon Israel and Jews on 7 October. I understand that my right hon. Friend will be travelling to the region, and he will see for himself the shock and trauma that is through the Israeli nation after this  event—shock and trauma that is accompanied by a rage. The enormous danger is that the Israeli reaction, led by a Prime Minister who will be held accountable for this failure of intelligence, is going to amount—is indeed amounting—to a war crime. That will not only be a crime; it will be a mistake. I urge my right hon. Friend: there is now no one better placed to urge Israel to stay within the international rule of law, and to exercise restraint on behalf of us all.

Rishi Sunak: As a friend, we will always urge Israel to take every possible practical precaution to avoid harming civilians, and indeed to act within international law, as Israel’s President has said its armed forces will do, while recognising the incredible complexity and difficulty of the situation on the ground. It bears repeating that Hamas is a terrorist organisation that embeds itself inside a civilian population. We always have to remember that. Israel is taking every possible practical step to avoid harming civilians, and we will do everything we can to provide humanitarian support to the area.

Rebecca Long-Bailey: The Prime Minister will be delighted to know that nuclear veterans like my constituent’s grandad, John, are starting to receive the medals he promised, but John is still not getting his full medical records. His blood tests from Christmas Island, which are crucial to claiming a war pension, are missing, and countless veterans report the same. As the Ministry of Defence has admitted that it holds at least 150 files withheld from national archives referring to blood test and other data, will he review those documents, report back to the House and hold a public inquiry into why medical record omissions have happened, and on whose instruction?

Rishi Sunak: I start by thanking all our veterans for their contribution to our safety and security. I am delighted to have been able to announce the new nuclear test medal last year and that it is starting to be received by many people, including the hon. Lady’s constituent. She will know that I cannot comment on ongoing litigation in respect of requests for health records, but I can say that anyone can request copies of their own medical data by submitting a subject access request to the Department, and if they are not satisfied with the processing of that request, they can make a formal complaint via the complaints process.

Simon Hoare: We appear to be on a downward spiral in the middle east, which inevitably will lead to a humanitarian crisis. The role of Egypt will be fantastically important. What can we in the wider international community do to work with the Egyptians to ensure that refugees coming on to Egyptian soil are legitimate refugees who pose no threat to the Egyptian state and are not terrorists in disguise?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend raises an excellent point regarding the Egyptians’ concerns about that border, but we have prioritised speaking with President Sisi and are in continued dialogue with our Egyptian partners to see what we can do to provide reassurances and get humanitarian aid to the region. We are working with local partners, including the Egyptian Red Crescent,  and the UN on the ground. There will be a significant logistical challenge in stockpiling aid at the border and then moving it into Gaza, but I assure my hon. Friend and the whole House that the Development Minister is actively engaged in that work as we speak, so that we can play a leading role in facilitating the provision of that aid.

Lindsay Hoyle: This is the final question before the urgent question. I call Patricia Gibson.

Patricia Gibson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The industrial dispute at the Defence Equipment and Support, Ministry of Defence site at Beith in my constituency is dragging on, as workers engage in strike action for parity and fairness in the workplace. These workers are critical to ensuring that necessary supplies to Ukraine are uninterrupted,  but all attempts by the workers to resolve this dispute have proved to be unsuccessful in the face of management intransigence. Will the Prime Minister personally and urgently use his influence to ensure that a meaningful offer is made to these workers, so that the matter can be resolved, further strike action can be averted, and supplies to Ukraine can continue without disruption?

Rishi Sunak: I thank the hon. Member for highlighting the critical role played by non-craft support operatives at Defence Munitions. Different rates of pay for workers with different skills and qualifications are entirely normal practice in both the public and the private sector. This year, as part of DE&S pay 2023, a generous pay award was delivered which significantly improved the base pay of workers engaged in the dispute. I am told that officials continue to be open to talks on a constructive basis with the GMB to resolve the situation.

Gaza: Al-Ahli Arab Hospital Explosion

David Lammy: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the explosion at the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza.

James Cleverly: The destruction of the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza is an appalling tragedy. A hospital is a place of compassion and care. This devastating loss of human life is profoundly disturbing. I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I offer my sincere condolences to the families of the deceased and to the injured.
The UK is working intensively with our allies to establish the facts. We will not rush to judgment. The whole House will understand that pointing fingers prematurely only fuels regional instability and upsets community cohesion here in the UK. We need a firm grasp of what has happened, not a slew of social media commentary. We all share a duty to be thoughtful and careful in how we respond to reports emerging from the conflict, which can be at best incomplete or at worst examples of active disinformation. We are carefully analysing the evidence that has been put in the public domain, and other information. As soon as we have reached a definitive conclusion for ourselves, we will make it public.
Some things are not in doubt, however. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out, Hamas carried out a terrorist assault on Israel that was unprecedented in that country’s 75-year history. The whole House united in support of Israel’s right to defend itself against terrorism. In defending itself, Israel must act with professionalism and an unwavering commitment to international law. States must take every precaution to minimise civilian casualties and ensure that humanitarian support reaches those in need. I welcome President Herzog’s unequivocal commitment—made both directly to me and in public—that Israel is operating in accordance with the rules of international law.
By embedding themselves in civilian populations, using innocent Palestinians as human shields, launching thousands of rockets since Saturday from one of the most crowded places in the world, and preventing civilians from heeding Israeli warnings about future areas of operation, Hamas reveal themselves and their callous indifference to human life. In this tense situation, UK diplomacy is relentlessly focused on our aims: supporting our nationals in their moment of need, pushing for and delivering humanitarian support, and working to prevent tensions spilling over into the wider region or playing out on the streets of this country. I have travelled to Israel and engaged with G7 allies and regional partners, and I will visit the region again later today because we recognise that this will require intensive effort.
None of us knows how this complex, protracted situation will develop. The Government are committed to keeping the House updated. Both here in the UK and in the region, this is a time for cool heads and determination to make a difference.

David Lammy: Thank you so much, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for his engagement with the Opposition at this very difficult time.
Today, we stand united in mourning the death of hundreds of innocent Palestinian civilians at the Al-Ahli Hospital. A place of healing became a scene of destruction. Hospitals must always be protected. The death of every civilian, Palestinian or Israeli, is an equal tragedy that pushes back the cause of peace.
When facing an incident of this magnitude, we all have a duty to act responsibly and judiciously as the facts are determined. Will the Foreign Secretary join me in urging everyone in this House and beyond to be wary of disinformation, and to avoid dangerous speculation before the facts are clear? Will he also update the House on what he is doing to deal with outside powers that might be seeking to drive division on our own shores?
The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have rightly said that they are working to establish the facts, looking at intelligence with our allies, and that must be right. We also note President Biden’s comments earlier today. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm whether the UK Government share that initial assessment? I also ask him to share with us what information he can, either publicly or on Privy Council terms. Does he agree that those responsible for the deaths at the Al-Ahli Hospital must be held to account?
Since Hamas’s appalling terrorist attack on Israel 11 days ago, Labour has been crystal clear that: first, we support Israel’s right to defend itself, rescue hostages and protect its citizens; secondly, international law must be followed at all times; and thirdly, civilians must not be targeted, aid must be provided and innocent lives must be protected. Gaza is in the middle of an active humanitarian emergency: innocent Palestinian civilians are terrified for their lives. Can the Foreign Secretary today commit that the Government will leave no stone unturned in their diplomatic efforts to secure humanitarian access to food, water, fuel, electricity and medicines, and to ensure the establishment of humanitarian corridors and the proper protection of humanitarian workers? Palestinian civilians in Gaza must know that the world is not simply watching, but acting on their behalf.

James Cleverly: The right hon. Gentleman makes a number of important points, which I commend to the House—a number of which I will respond to and, indeed, amplify. He is absolutely right that this is an incredibly sensitive situation, and not just for the region itself. Our desire to prevent this tragedy from expanding into a regional conflict remains an absolute priority, and of course we have a duty as a Government—I am sure it is a passion shared by the whole House—to ensure that Jewish and Muslim communities in the UK are safe and feel safe, and do not experience ramifications from circumstances that are far beyond these shores and beyond their control.
For that reason, everybody—particularly those who have a voice in the public sphere, whether formal or informal—should be particularly careful about what information they disseminate. They should be particularly vigilant against disinformation, and speculation is never useful. I appreciate that the House, and indeed the country, will want to understand what is going on in  real time, and sometimes the pause that we impose on ourselves to ensure that the information the Government provide is accurate can be frustrating, but I would prefer, of course, to be accurate rather than just to work at pace.
The right hon. Gentleman is right that there are malign influences seeking to take advantage of this terrible situation, and we do guard against that. We take note of what President Biden has said, but we will come to our own judgment. We will work on that quickly and ensure that our assessment is put in the public domain as soon as we are confident of the details.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Father of the House.

Peter Bottomley: As the Foreign Secretary said, we should soon know the direct cause of this explosion. I will send him and the Prime Minister a letter that I have received from the Worthing Islamic society—I think that Jewish people and others in my constituency will agree with every sentence. It ends by asking the Government to use their “influence and support” to
“encourage a peaceful and sustainable resolution that prioritises the rights and well-being of innocent civilians”
caught up in the onslaught.

James Cleverly: The Father of the House makes an incredibly important point. As a former Minister for the middle east, I am acutely conscious of the implications for Islamic communities both in the region and here in the UK, and the protection of those people is as close to our hearts as the protection of Jewish people here in the UK. We will relentlessly pursue what is the enduring UK Government position, which is a viable two-state solution, with Israelis and Palestinians living in peace side by side. Of course these circumstances are a setback, but nevertheless we will not be fatalistic. We will continue to work with Israel, the Palestinian people and the wider region to bring about that positive aim.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Brendan O'Hara: It appears that what happened last night at the Al-Ahli Hospital in Gaza was a war crime—it was a crime against humanity—and if that is the case, there can be no hiding place for those who gave the order and those who carried it out. Independent investigators must be allowed to find out exactly who is responsible for this atrocity and have them brought before the International Criminal Court.
The scenes of death and destruction from last night are beyond harrowing, but the tragic reality of this conflict is that innocent civilian lives are being viewed as little more than collateral damage. They are not collateral damage; every single human life matters, and they matter equally—Israeli, including the hostages, who must be immediately released, and Palestinian.
Today it was reported that, as a direct result of the draconian collective punishment against the civilian population of Gaza, children are dying of thirst. Will the Government now finally tell the Israeli Government that the imposition of a collective punishment is a crime, that it is a breach of international humanitarian law and that it must end immediately?

James Cleverly: I note what the hon. Member has said about the incident at the Al-Ahli Hospital. As I say, we will be making a statement only when we are comfortable about the facts. We have to be realistic that the opportunity for any kind of independent investigation going into Gaza is severely limited, which is why we are taking the time to ensure that we get this right.
In all our conversations with the Israelis, we have reinforced the need for the protection of civilians; they understand that and they agree. President Herzog has made a commitment about adherence to international law. We must, however, be completely clear that Hamas accept no such limitations on their actions. They have specifically targeted civilians and children—they went out of their way to identify and murder the most vulnerable—and it is completely appropriate for Israel to take action to protect its civilians and prevent Hamas from perpetrating further atrocities in that country.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Alicia Kearns: The situation is unbearable, but while the horrors of last night cannot be unseen, we must not look away. Violence is increasing across the region, but also in Europe and the US. We in this House have a duty to protect British nationals, so what assessment have the Government made of whether the joint terrorism analysis centre needs to raise the threat level? Can I also have reassurance about what is being done to protect out diplomatic staff around the world after the heinous attacks we saw on Israeli and American embassies overnight?

James Cleverly: My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. We constantly assess the threat picture both here in the UK and in the region. I have conducted an all-staff meeting with Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office staff across the whole world—I am told that over 5,000 people attended that briefing. I made it clear that, as their employer, I regard my duty of care towards them as uppermost. We do of course continue to support British nationals overseas, including in the region, and our consular team are maintaining, as best they can, contact with British nationals in Israel, and indeed in Gaza. It is an incredibly difficult consular situation, but I can assure the House that we will remain, as far as we are able to, in contact with those British nationals seeking our support, and we are consistently trying to reopen exit routes from Gaza so that British nationals can leave.

Diane Abbott: The Foreign Secretary will be aware of the horror with which the missile strike on a hospital in Gaza, which caused hundreds upon hundreds of casualties, is regarded not just here in Britain, but in the region and internationally. The House has heard his injunction not to jump to conclusions, but would he support a genuinely independent inquiry into what is happening?

James Cleverly: Of course, an independent inquiry is the gold standard in the event of such a circumstance, but the simple truth in relation to having any kind of independent investigation in Gaza is that the current situation—bearing in mind that our own embassy team there are severely limited in what they are able to do,  and the international community is not able to operate freely—makes the practicality of that incredibly difficult. We are making our own assessment. We will gather and analyse as much information as we can. We will not be led by any other nation; it will be a UK assessment of the situation. Once we have come to a conclusion, we will share it with the House and the country.

Damian Green: I am sure that my right hon. Friend and the Government are wise not to rush to conclusions, and to have a proper investigation before they come to a conclusion about what actually happened in this utterly appalling incident. I am struck by the number of emails I have received from constituents who have already rushed to conclusions, and all blame Israel. Does he agree that this shows the important responsibility not only that broadcasters have to ensure they do not disseminate false information, but that owners of social media platforms have to try to avoid hate being spread literally around the world at times like this?

James Cleverly: My right hon. Friend will know that, within Government, action is being taken to ensure that social media owners act with greater professionalism and greater consciousness of the impact they have. I would make a broad point to broadcasters—I have had this conversation directly with them in the past—which is that I believe there is an attempt by broadcasters to try to outpace social media platforms. The days of breaking news on traditional platforms are long in the past; they should focus on accuracy rather than pace, because their words have impacts here in the UK and around the world.

Sam Tarry: My heart breaks for everyone who lost their lives in the Episcopal hospital disaster last night. It is now quite clear that even hospitals are not a safe place of refuge anywhere in Gaza. That hospital was struck by a missile the week before yesterday. I want to understand quite clearly from the Foreign Secretary why, as we call on the country for humanitarian access to Gaza, we are not also calling for an immediate ceasefire to enable that to happen. It seems to me bizarre that we cannot call for a ceasefire to enable that humanitarian corridor to open, because the scale of death that is now unfolding will reach tenfold over the next few days.
In line with that, I would really like to hear from the Foreign Secretary assurances that he is speaking to our Israeli counterparts to ensure that any Gazans and Palestinians who do evacuate will have an absolute right of return to their lands and do not end up languishing, as the millions of other Palestinian refugees currently still do, in both Jordan and Lebanon.

James Cleverly: I have conversations regularly with the Israeli Government, and with the Governments of countries in the neighbourhood, about Palestinian refugees. I am unable to go into the details because they are extensive, but the hon. Member should be aware that we have always supported Palestinian refugees, with the £27 million to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, and the recent announcement of an additional £10 million is a direct response to the situation there.
The simple truth is that Israel does have a right to defend itself. The truth is that Hamas have no interest in a ceasefire. They have no interest in resolution, they have never attempted to engage in a two-state solution, and they have made every attempt to collapse the Oslo process. They are no friend of the Palestinian people. They have fired literally thousands of rockets into Israel since Saturday. Israel does have the right to take action to defend itself and to recover its hostages, and the UK, while respecting that, will of course always encourage it to adhere to international law and to protect civilians.

Dominic Raab: The Foreign Secretary is surely right to say that we must not rush to judgment on this incident, but does he agree that one fact we know right now is that the primary moral, and as a result legal, responsibility for the appalling civilian life loss in Gaza today and in the days ahead lies with Hamas, first for their attack on Israel, and secondly for the systematic practice of using civilians as human shields?

James Cleverly: I know that my predecessor and right hon. Friend is very well read on this situation, and I pay tribute to the work he did when he was Foreign Secretary and I was his Minister for the Middle East and North Africa. He is absolutely right, and we must be clear-eyed about the trigger event. It was the most brutal mass murder in a terrorist action in the history of the state of Israel, and the largest loss of Jewish life on a single day since the holocaust. Of course Israel has the right to defend itself, and we must never forget that Hamas’s actions of embedding themselves in civilian communities and putting Palestinian lives intentionally at risk to pursue their political aims is completely unjustifiable.

John Martin McDonnell: Whatever the outcome of the independent inquiries into what happened with the tragedy in Gaza yesterday, in reality Gaza is such a densely populated area that no matter what efforts are made, the effects of bombing will be indiscriminate. If the Government cannot go as far as calling for a ceasefire, will they at least call for the end of the rockets and the bombs? If they cannot go as far as to call for the end of the bombing, can they at least call on Israel to stop bombing the south, where refugees from Gaza City are going at the instructions of the Israeli army? A cease in the bombing could trigger the negotiations that enable the release of the hostages.

James Cleverly: I pay tribute to the work of the international community in trying to secure the release of the hostages. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister emphasised the work that the Qataris are doing in this instance. They are not the only ones doing that, and we will continue to support their efforts. I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says about calls to stop the air attacks on Gaza from Israel, but the simple truth is that the alternative is a ground assault by Israel and, as he says, the practicalities of any military operation in an area as densely populated as Gaza will be deeply challenging. Again, I remind the House that the people who murdered those revellers, those partygoers, those children and those old people embed themselves in civilian communities—in hospitals, in schools—specifically to use innocent Palestinians as human shields. We must all understand the culpability that they hold for many  of these civilian casualties, but I will, of course, once again speak with the Israelis about making every effort that they are able to make to minimise civilian casualties.

Mark Pritchard: Whoever was responsible for the hospital attack last evening, it was an appalling human tragedy, and we think of all those who have lost their loved ones at this time. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s commitment to be evidence-led in what the Government say about this incident. Does he agree that if the UK intelligence community, whether that is GCHQ, the Secret Intelligence Service, Defence Intelligence and so on, are having to take time and deliberate in order to come to a conclusion, perhaps all of us in this place, including media organisations outside this place, should also show the same caution and consideration before making statements that could prove incendiary?

James Cleverly: My right hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. There is, of course, the completely understandable desire of media outlets to report promptly, but I believe they have a greater duty to report accurately and responsibly. Words that emanate from the UK are taken seriously. We have huge standing in the world, and things that are said at the Dispatch Box, in this House and on our media, are listened to around the world. Therefore, we have an enhanced duty to ensure that the words we say are accurate.

Steve McCabe: I deplore the loss of all civilian life, Israeli and Palestinian, and I commend the Foreign Secretary for his caution over attributing blame for last night’s attack. Does he think that we should also be cautious about the figures for casualties coming from Gaza? They do not describe all as civilian casualties; there is reason to believe that there is a very high volume of Hamas combatants among those figures.

James Cleverly: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I am not going to minimise the pain and suffering of those Palestinian families who have lost loved ones and had people injured, but we know that just as Hamas are abusing the Palestinian people, they also abuse the figures that they put in the public domain. We must be highly sceptical of any information coming out of Hamas, just as the Prime Minister said we should be. We remain focused on trying to reduce the pain and suffering of the Palestinian people, as well as supporting Israel and its self-defence. While doing so we should be deeply, deeply sceptical of any and all information coming from Hamas spokespersons.

Iain Duncan Smith: I commend my right hon. Friend for his caution. We should remind ourselves of the words of Mark Twain:
“A lie can travel half way around the world”
before the truth has got its boots on. Never more certainly was that the case than here. I remind hon. Members that Hamas bear complete responsibility for everything. Our hearts go out to all the innocents who have died and suffered—of course they do—but Hamas are the perpetrators and they have brought this on themselves. We remind ourselves that when they murdered all those Israeli Jews in the territories, they filmed them and committed atrocities deliberately. That was to remind  the Israelis of the holocaust and what was likely to come. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that broadcasters should not enter into discursive debate? When as issue such as this happens, they should report the facts as known, and nothing further.

James Cleverly: My right hon. Friend speaks with authority and clarity on this, and I find myself in complete agreement with him. I have Jewish friends who are trying to keep their children off social media, because they know that they will be assaulted with images of Israelis who have been murdered and whose bodies have been desecrated. No one in the modern era should have to endure that kind of repeated pain.

Olivia Blake: Evacuation orders in the past week have included hospitals, but many vulnerable people are unable to move because of their disabilities or illness. What conversations has the Foreign Secretary had directly with UK aid agencies and non-governmental organisations about that situation? What more can the UK do to ensure that civilian populations, including medical and aid workers, are protected?

James Cleverly: The hon. Lady raises an incredibly important point, and my Department remains in close co-ordination with international aid agencies and NGOs. We recognise the practical difficulties of that evacuation order, and in a highly dense area such as Gaza we completely understand those practical difficulties, particularly for medical organisations.. As imperfect as it may be, attempting to remove civilians from a future area of military operations stands in sharp contrast with the actions of Hamas, who are actively seeking to prevent people from leaving an area of future conflict, and intentionally putting civilians in the way, using innocent Palestinians as human shields.

Michael Ellis: I commend the Foreign Secretary, and his Opposition shadow, for their tone, but the fact is that last night an evil terrorist organisation that murders Jews and oppresses Palestinians was instantly believed in a number of quarters, whereas many refused to acknowledge that Jewish babies had been brutally murdered without demanding graphic proof. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that unsubstantiated reports such as those we saw last night might actually cost lives, because they inflame tensions in an already highly volatile region?

James Cleverly: My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. Everything has a cost, and rushed, inaccurate reporting costs lives. Everybody, whether they are formally involved in the reporting process, a citizen journalist or just active on social media, should be very conscious that this involves real lives in the most sensitive of circumstances and that such reporting could have repercussions not just in the area or the region, but in this country as well.

Hannah Bardell: We rightly unite to condemn the barbaric actions of Hamas against innocent Israelis, and the loss of Palestinian lives and the unfolding humanitarian crisis is a profound tragedy. The scenes at al-Ahli Hospital shock us all, and I hope the Secretary of State will do everything to ensure an independent investigation, but people in Gaza are trapped,  so what more will he do to ensure consular support not just on the ground there, but to families heartbroken back here in the UK? Will he hear and heed the words of Nadia El-Nakla, the wife of our Scottish First Minister, whose family are trapped there right now? She said:
“We are not watching a natural disaster, this can be stopped.”

James Cleverly: The consular department in the FCDO has got in contact with the families of those British nationals who are trapped in Gaza, and we are providing ongoing consular support. The hon. Lady will understand that the experience of the First Minister, his wife and their family is a live example of the plight of a number of families. Information is incomplete, our access is severely limited and sadly we have to rely on a number of interlocutors and people over whom we do not have direct control, including Hamas. We will continue to support British nationals as best we can, until they have been evacuated from that area.

Andrew Percy: One fact that is not in dispute is that every rocket fired from Gaza into Israel is aimed at murdering civilians, in stark contrast to Israeli defensive action. Last night, there were Members in this place, including senior Members, scurrying around, stating as fact that this incident was caused by an Israeli rocket. The BBC and other media referred to statements by “Hamas officials”—I think they meant to say Hamas terrorists—and presented them as fact without challenge. That not only risks radicalisation of communities in this country, where we already know there is a problem with antisemitism, but puts Jews at risk. I urge colleagues to be careful of their comments given the role that blood libels play in promoting antisemitism.

James Cleverly: My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point, and I restate my request of all people commenting on this—whether they have a formal role within the media or are in a high-profile position, such as Members of this House—to be thoughtful of the implications of their actions, to be sceptical of all information coming out from Hamas, and to take a little extra time to verify, which can literally save lives here and abroad.

Rachael Maskell: I know this situation is complex, and the taking of life and hostages, whether Israeli or Palestinian, is abhorrent, but we have to recognise that Palestinians cannot defend themselves. They have no means, and now their places of sanctuary, such as hospitals, are no longer safe places either. For that reason, I urge the Foreign Secretary once more to call for a ceasefire, so that we can see a de-escalation in this horrific conflict.

James Cleverly: Of course everybody—I will rephrase that. All reasonable people want this terrible situation to be resolved, and resolved quickly. This was not a conflict that Israel asked for; it is a conflict that they were forced to engage in because of the mass murder in their country perpetrated by Hamas terrorists who embed themselves in schools, hospitals and in civilian communities.  Calls for ceasefires are all well and good, but I have seen nothing—nothing—that leads me to believe that Hamas would respect calls for a ceasefire.

Crispin Blunt: May I say to my right hon. Friend that whatever the investigation finds out, in a sense it will not matter a great deal to all those who are dead in the hospital? Whether the Israeli explanation is correct that it was an Islamic Jihad missile that misfired and then landed among explosives that were on the hospital site that then killed so many people, or whether it was an Israeli strike, in the end both sides have now committed war crimes. If they are just additional crimes being added to the ledger on either side, that is simply what it will be. I say to my right hon. Friend, in his relations with Israel and in reinforcing the position of the Prime Minister, that the only way to get out of this mess is a ceasefire. Otherwise, we will not see the relief of people who are starving and are dehydrating to death—that is a collective punishment, which is illegal under international law—following the deportation of people from northern Gaza, which again is illegal under international law. There are specific offences that have already taken place, and I say to my right hon. Friend: for all our sakes, he should work, as he said, with clear-minded determination to get the best answer from our ally.

James Cleverly: The House needs to understand that prior to Hamas’s terrorist attack, tens of thousands of Gazans passed through the border into Israel every day in order to work. Israel provided—often without payment—water, electricity and gas to the people of Gaza. That was interrupted as a direct result of Hamas’s brutal terrorist action. Thousands of rockets are fired from Gaza into Israel from in and among schools, hospitals and civilian communities. We do of course always remind Israel, as we would any other nation involved in military operations, of their duties under international law. President Herzog, Israel’s head of state, has reinforced that commitment. We hear no such commitment from Hamas.

Margaret Hodge: Last night’s absolute tragedy of the explosion at the Al-Ahli Hospital will simply intensify passions and polarise the debate even more. Many children and young people here in the UK will have seen the images on our televisions and screens and on social media platforms, and I think they will be influenced by that. While I thank the Government for the money and support they are giving to the organisations protecting faith schools, mosques and synagogues, can the Minister tell us what he is doing to provide advice and support to ordinary schools and our universities, where there is an intensification of hatred emerging and where I am hearing of both antisemitic and Islamophobic views being expressed and attacks being wrought on individuals?

James Cleverly: The right hon. Lady makes an incredibly important point. While I will not go into details of conversations in Cabinet, I can assure her that the protection of all communities in the UK was something that the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities highlighted. That very much goes hand-in-hand with the commitment that the Home Secretary has made that we will protect all communities  in the UK—Muslim, Jewish and others—and we will work with institutions, whether educational institutions or others, to try to ensure that the people at those institutions can go about their lives free from fear, intimidation and discrimination.

Rehman Chishti: I very much agree with the Foreign Secretary that the entity responsible for the loss of lives we are seeing now is Hamas: a terrorist barbaric organisation that killed innocent Jewish people. The question now is about doing everything we can to save lives of both Israeli and Palestinian people who are innocent in that regard. I welcome the Government’s commitment to humanitarian assistance for the ordinary people of Palestine and the Foreign Secretary’s differentiation, like the Prime Minister’s differentiation, between the people of Palestine and the terrorist organisation Hamas.
The Foreign Secretary says that, moving forward, we will work towards a two-state solution. The people in the region want to know what that two-state solution is. Is that based on Security Council resolution 242 and the 1967 borders, which the United Kingdom signed up to? What is a clear framework for that? The Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), has previously asked for the UK to appoint an envoy to the region. We have two brilliant contenders, if I may say so, in William Hague, the foreign former secretary who gets the region, and Alistair Burt, a brilliant, well-respected former Minister. We have choices and options. When will the Foreign Secretary outline that part of the next steps?

James Cleverly: My hon. Friend makes some important points. The truth is that we remain committed to a two-state solution, with Palestinians and Israelis living side-by-side in peace and prosperity. While at the moment and in these circumstances that might feel like an unachievable aim, we refuse to be fatalistic and give up that aspiration. The details will be for negotiation, but he and the House will have heard us say on a number of occasions that it will be based on the 1967 borders, with land swaps and a shared capital in Jerusalem. But we will not be dogmatic; what we want to see is peace brought about. I hear what he said about appointing a special envoy. We have some of our most capable people in our posts in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem and in Gaza.

Anum Qaisar: I repeat my condemnation of the Hamas attacks against innocent Israeli citizens. We saw civilians in Gaza forcibly moved from their homes with no guarantee of safety or return, yet the Government failed to speak out. We saw food, water and electricity cut off in Gaza, yet the Government failed to speak out. Last night, we saw the destruction of a hospital in Gaza. The Government now need to speak out.
Will the Foreign Secretary support the International Criminal Court investigation into the situation in Palestine, given that the prosecutor has said that its mandate includes the current context? That so obviously and urgently must include investigation of the hospital explosion. We need to ensure that no more blood is spilled. We need a ceasefire now.

James Cleverly: I must say to the hon. Lady that her assessment of the UK Government’s voice on this issue is fundamentally wrong. We have consistently discussed with Israel—and publicly—our commitment to humanitarian law. She needs to understand that a military force highlighting a future potential area of conflict and encouraging people to move away from that area of conflict is not forced relocation. [Interruption.] It is not forced relocation. I draw her attention to the actions that Hamas have taken to prevent innocent Palestinians from moving away from places of danger. The contrast could not be more stark.

Richard Graham: Given that we do not know the facts about what happened and whether, for example, this was a ghastly mistake, we should be here not to blame but to mourn the loss of so many doctors, staff and patients at the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital, which I and several other hon. Members from the House visited more than a decade ago. It was founded in the late 19th century by the Episcopal Church in Jerusalem and is run by it to this day, so it is likely that Christians as well as Muslims will have lost their lives.
Will my right hon. Friend, whose approach has been appropriately calm at a time when we need to reduce and not inflame tensions both domestically and in the middle east, do his best to stay in touch with the Anglican Church to see if it has more information about what has happened to those who were there, to see how we can help re-establish what was a valuable programme—for example, it provided free breast cancer treatment and mobile clinics—and do all he can to think about how, in the longer term, we can enable people in that troubled land to co-exist in a way that we have, for so long, failed to do, supporting the United Nations Relief and Works Agency as far as possible on its humanitarian mission?

James Cleverly: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the tragic loss of life in this instance. As I have said, the UK Government share in the grief of those who have lost loved ones, irrespective of their faith or their community. We know that there are incredibly passionate voices on both sides, but, as I have said a number of times, we have a duty to be calm and careful when we speak about this issue. We will continue to work for peaceful co-existence of all the communities in that region. As difficult as that is, it will remain a priority for the UK Government.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. It is my intention to call all Members who were here at the beginning of the urgent question and who are trying to catch my eye. I have to say to the House that we are clearly dealing with a very sensitive, emotive and sad subject, but it is not necessary for every Member to express their grief, understanding and empathy. That has been done. Let us take it for granted that we are all broken-hearted about the situation; let us not repeat that before every question. This is not an occasion for speeches; it is one for questions. If we can have straightforward, short questions that enable the Secretary of State to give straightforward, short answers, we will get everyone in. If not, there will be disappointment.

Sarah Champion: I am terrified that there will be an escalation leading to many more civilians on all sides being murdered. I have listened intently to what the Foreign Secretary has said about why he is not calling for a ceasefire, but could he explain both as a diplomat and as a military man how we can get humanitarian aid in, how we can create safe zones and how we can prevent civilian loss of life? Slightly longer term, will he tell us what conversations he is having with the international community about long-term aid and support for the inevitable Palestinian refugees?

James Cleverly: The hon. Lady, the Chair of the International Development Committee, makes an incredibly important point. I, the Prime Minister, my ministerial colleagues and of course our ambassadorial teams in the region have been speaking extensively to try to facilitate humanitarian access. That has been most notably with Egypt, but we have also been using our very good relationship with the Qataris to try to influence Hamas, and of course our direct relationship with Israel to try to broker some kind of humanitarian access, even if only temporarily. Thus far, that has been unsuccessful. We will continue to work on that. We have allocated an additional £10 million for direct humanitarian support for the Palestinian people—of course, we are not limited to just that—and we co-ordinating with the international community to ensure that whether in Gaza or wider in the region, Palestinians are looked after in these difficult times.

Duncan Baker: My constituent Rev. David Longe is a priest in North Norfolk and formerly served as a priest in Jerusalem. I spoke to him on the telephone last night, and he has potentially lost friends who were working in the Al-Ahli Hospital. He tells me that there are Gazans sheltering in churches, so will the Foreign Secretary please make it absolutely clear in his discussions that the humanitarian role that the churches are currently partaking in must not be underestimated and that the Roman Catholic Church in North Gaza and the Greek Orthodox Church must be absolutely protected for the people they are sheltering?

James Cleverly: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the importance of the faith communities. We often talk about the Jewish faith and Islam but when it comes to this region, the Christian churches play an incredibly important role, and I pay tribute to them. I have heard his point, and I will continue to speak about the avoidance of civilian casualties, particularly in places of safe haven such as churches.

Richard Foord: When seeking to counter an insurgency in Afghanistan over a decade ago, General McChrystal adopted a new concept for NATO soldiers: courageous restraint. This was to separate the insurgents from the civilians among whom they lived. Can the Foreign Secretary inform the House how courageous restraint can be urged on all combatants, including through the full resumption of the water supply to Gaza?

James Cleverly: Courageous restraint, which the hon. Gentleman highlighted, is now a well-embedded concept in professional military forces. I have discussed with representatives of the IDF my admiration for its professionalism and my expectation that it will maintain  that professionalism through any military operations. Courageous restraint is not a concept in the heart of Hamas terrorists. We must be realistic about that. Therefore, we will work with Israel and other countries in the region to try to bring this to a conclusion as quickly as possible, but we maintain our support of Israel’s self-defence and we highlight the fact that Hamas are just as willing to see Palestinians killed as they are to see Israelis killed, to pursue their political aims.

Nicola Richards: Last night, much of the UK media felt it appropriate to immediately and with no room for doubt blame Israel, before the IDF gave its evidence that the rocket was launched from Palestinian Islamic Jihad. It is right that the UK Government independently assess what happened. All that is made so much harder because Hamas have no morals, no boundaries and no problem with killing any innocent civilian in Israel or Gaza. Will the Foreign Secretary reassure me that he knows that standing with Israel now will put us on the right side of history?

James Cleverly: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the callous nature of Hamas’s activities and those of other terrorist groups embedded in Gaza. We expressed our solidarity with the Israelis in their time of grief in the aftermath of those terrible attacks, and we stand in solidarity with them still. We are good friends with the state of Israel. Good friends speak honestly with each other, and we will always do that, but we will always stand beside a nation that seeks to protect itself and its people in the face of such a relentless terrorist threat.

Lilian Greenwood: Last night’s explosion at the Al-Ahli Hospital only adds to the unspeakable pain of innocent Palestinian civilians in Gaza. As the Foreign Secretary knows, they face a deepening humanitarian crisis, unable to access food, water, fuel, electricity or medical supplies. When does he expect supplies of those lifesaving necessities to be restored to Gaza?

James Cleverly: We have spoken to Israel and countries in the region about the humanitarian need, which is why we put forward the additional money that the Prime Minister announced on Monday. Of course, we do not want those innocent Palestinians caught in Gaza, who are suffering because of the actions of Hamas, to suffer any more than is absolutely necessary. We will continue working with the international community on humanitarian support and with Israel on the preservation of civilian life.

Marion Fellows: I keep hearing the words of my mother in my brain, and I have done for the last week: “Twa wrangs dinnae make a right.” Hamas are an indefensible organisation in any right person’s books, but the fact that they will not do right does not mean that the UK Government should not demand and work hard towards a ceasefire, and make sure that humanitarian aid gets into Gaza. I thinking repeatedly, as do many others, of helpless children. I am a mother and a grandmother, and that is what I think about every night. Will the Foreign Secretary please make every effort not just to have money set aside but to tell us how he will get humanitarian aid into Gaza City and help those who are suffering in Israel as well?

James Cleverly: Calls for a ceasefire are understandable, and I have much sympathy for the position the hon. Lady sets out, but a ceasefire has to be respected by both parties in a conflict, and I have seen absolutely nothing in the behaviour of Hamas during and since the terrorist attack that gives me any confidence at all that they would respect a ceasefire. Unless they respect a ceasefire, it is not credible to demand that Israel does not defend itself against terrorism.

Debbie Abrahams: To follow up on the previous point, the UN Secretary-General António Guterres has also called for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire. Clearly, the Foreign Secretary has some issues with that, though I do not really understand why. Is it not appropriate for a third party with people on the ground, such as the UN, to make an assessment—one that, with respect, is probably more realistic than his? In the meantime, what safe corridors are being proposed? Has the Foreign Secretary considered them, so we can at least have some safe evacuation for Gazans?

James Cleverly: I remind the hon. Lady and the House that we have people on the ground. My staff are in danger in Gaza. They choose to put their lives at risk in an incredibly dangerous part of the world in order to give me direct insight into the realities on the ground. I urge her to be a bit more thoughtful with regard to the danger that my UK-based diplomats and locally engaged staff put themselves in.
The truth is that I have received nothing that gives me any indication that Hamas or the other terrorist groups operating in Gaza would respect a ceasefire. I respect the UN Secretary-General’s call for a ceasefire. We would all love to see the bloodshed cease, but we have to be realistic about the fact that Hamas, like the other terrorist organisations in Gaza, have demonstrated over and again a complete callousness towards human life, whether Israeli or Palestinian.

Tan Dhesi: After all the decades of suffering, injustice and occupation endured by the Palestinian people, this terrorism and the scenes of death and destruction at Al-Ahli Arab Hospital are truly heart-wrenching. Those responsible must be held to account, international law must be adhered to and there should be no collective punishment of the Palestinian people. Will the Secretary of State advise the House how he feels peace can be obtained, and of his efforts to urgently deliver food, water, medicines and other aid to blockaded Gaza?

James Cleverly: The hon. Gentleman and the House will have heard the detailed explanation that I gave in answer to the initial question of the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). We work relentlessly with the countries neighbouring Israel and Gaza. I will travel to Egypt once again to try to facilitate humanitarian support, and we will work with those countries that are able to influence the leadership in Gaza. We will not rest. We will continue to do everything we can to alleviate this terrible humanitarian situation. The hon. Gentleman asked what is the best thing to do for peace. A good starting point would be terrorists not firing rockets from densely populated areas into Israel.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Secretary of State for his clear commitment and true words that, I believe, have captured the collective opinion of us all in this House. As he said, last weekend Hamas terrorists killed 1,400 Israelis, injured 3,500 and kidnapped almost 200. The news last night and this morning filled us all with despair. The bombing of the ill and the elderly at Al-Ahli Arab Hospital is reprehensible to the extreme and to be condemned. However, the circumstances of that horrific event are not clear. Does the Secretary of State agree that while horror and sympathy are to be expressed, judgments must be withheld until all facts are known and clear?

James Cleverly: The hon. Gentleman, as always, speaks with great thoughtfulness on this issue. The immediate and understandable expression of sympathy and condolence is absolutely right and proper, but that should not be conflated with a rush to judgment. Doing so has significant effects, and, as I have said, can quite credibly cause further pain, suffering and loss of life. We should all be conscious of that when we speak in the public domain.

Margaret Greenwood: I thank the Secretary of State for the work he is doing to bring home my constituent who is trapped in Gaza. I note his comments about the consular support for UK nationals. I would be grateful for any further information he can provide—if he can—on facilitating the safe passage of UK nationals and the flow of humanitarian aid. I urge him to pursue these matters on his trip to the region later today.

James Cleverly: I assure the hon. Lady and the House that those are exactly the issues I will be raising on my forthcoming travel to the region. The consular team in the FCDO is making regular contact with those people in Gaza for whom we have contact details, to give them as much notice as possible as and when an exit route becomes available. At the moment that has not become available, but we will keep working to open humanitarian routes and to inform people once they are opened.

Caroline Lucas: We do not yet know who is responsible for the unspeakable atrocity at the Gaza hospital, but we do know that hundreds were killed and hundreds more were injured; we do know that yesterday an IDF airstrike hit an UNRWA—United Nations Relief and Works Agency—school where thousands were sheltering, killing more; and we do know that over 3,000 civilians have been killed in Gaza so far. Israel does have the right to self-defence, but that cannot include mass bombing of densely populated areas if Israel is simultaneously to stay within international law. I urge the Secretary of State to think again about the issue of a ceasefire. Of course it would need to be worked for and of course it is going to be hard, but unless the UK Government give their backing to the UN on this issue, thousands more will be killed. We should be on the right side of history and I am very much afraid right now that we will not be.

James Cleverly: Israel is one of the parties engaged in this military operation, but there are others, including Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. I suggest that anybody calling on Israel to cease military operations should at least—at least—call on the terrorists to do likewise.

Afzal Khan: As hospitals are targeted, medical relief organisations are desperately trying to evacuate sick and wounded patients to increasingly fewer places of safety, while protecting the dedicated staff looking after them. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm how many functioning hospitals are left in Gaza and how Palestinians who continue to be targeted by bombardments are supposed to receive lifesaving medical treatment?

James Cleverly: The simple truth of the matter is that I do not know the status of the medical facilities in Gaza. We want them to be protected—we have made that clear, and we will continue to do so in all future engagements and conversations we have with Israel. We will, of course, call on Hamas and the other terrorist organisations to remove themselves from the proximity of those hospitals if they are conducting military operations.

Hywel Williams: The UN reports that the last water treatment desalination plant in Gaza has shut down. At the same time, people are drinking contaminated tap water and polluted sea water. The World Health Organisation says that people need 15 litres of water a day and people in Gaza are surviving on three. Can the Foreign Secretary tell me what practical steps are being taken to ensure the resumption of fuel supplies to water treatment works in Gaza?

James Cleverly: The situation with regard to the provision of electricity, gas and water from Israel to Gaza is of course important. We have spoken with Israel about this. The hon. Gentleman makes the point that Gaza did have its own water production capabilities. We saw videos posted by Hamas proudly demonstrating how water pipes, funded by European aid, were being ripped up and turned into rockets to fire into Israel. Although of course we speak with Israel about support to the Palestinians in Gaza, and our own support to the Palestinians in Gaza, we must not overlook the fact that Hamas has habitually persecuted, punished and oppressed the Palestinian people in Gaza.

Sharon Hodgson: We have already seen one Iranian terror proxy, Hamas, launch attacks against Israel in the past 11 days, but we know that another Iranian proxy, Hezbollah, is waiting in the wings to attack Israel from the north—indeed, this may have already started. What steps are the Government taking to deter Hezbollah from seeking to attack or otherwise undermine Israel at this most difficult time?

James Cleverly: The hon. Lady makes an incredibly important point. The United States of America and the United Kingdom have put naval assets in the eastern Mediterranean, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at Prime Minister’s questions. That is not to conduct military operations; it is to conduct surveillance operations to prevent Iran, or indeed anyone else, from supplying Hezbollah with lethal aid that might be used against Israel.

Stephen Farry: In recognising Israel’s right to self-defence against Hamas’s brutal terrorism, the Government have rightly cited international humanitarian law. However, it seems to be the position of the Government that it has so far not yet been  broken. Indeed, today the Foreign Secretary has several times cited President Herzog to that effect. By contrast, we have a number of UN agencies and actors, non-governmental organisations and international lawyers all saying that collective punishment is a clear breach of international humanitarian law, including, for example, the cutting off of supplies and the forced movement of people. Frankly, forcing people to leave their homes or hospitals because they are under threat of bombing is forced movement. How does the Foreign Secretary address those contradictions in the UK Government’s position?

James Cleverly: There are no contradictions in the UK Government’s position. I have set out the Government’s position. The hon. Gentleman may disagree with it and others may disagree with it, but there are no contradictions.

Andrew Gwynne: The terror attack on Israeli citizens and the subsequent abduction was brutal and evil. The scenes from Al-Ahli hospital last night on the television were beyond comprehension and upsetting, and it goes without saying that we have to do everything we can to stop the impending humanitarian crisis in Gaza from happening. But I am really concerned—I am sure the Foreign Secretary is—that the conflict between Israel and Hamas does not spill over into the streets of any community in the United Kingdom. My home city, Manchester, is welcoming of Muslim and Jew alike. What more are the Government doing to ensure that the catastrophe in the middle east does not end up on the streets of Britain?

James Cleverly: The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point. I can give him and the House our commitment to protect all communities in the United Kingdom. No one should be held responsible for actions happening thousands of miles away. They have an absolute right to live in peace and security here in the UK. The Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the rest of the Government are absolutely committed to doing everything we can to protect all people, of whatever faith or community, here in the UK.

Kenny MacAskill: Fourteen hundred years on from Cáin Adomnáin, the law of the innocents to protect women and children in conflict, both the terror of Hamas and the utterly disproportionate and illegal response by Israel stain our modern world. Rather than the supine acceptance of Israeli-US policy, will the Secretary of State instead heed the wise counsel of President Higgins of Ireland and seek both an immediate ceasefire and justice for the Palestinian people?

James Cleverly: UK foreign policy is set in London, not in Washington and not in Dublin.

Diana R. Johnson: The Foreign Secretary has talked about accountability and accuracy in broadcasts and social media. Does he share my bafflement at why the BBC, our national broadcaster, has repeatedly refused to describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation when they are a proscribed terrorist group?

James Cleverly: I am genuinely baffled by this. I understand that the BBC says that to do so would be to take sides, but I fundamentally disagree with that.  The BBC has used the word “terrorist” on a number of occasions, both domestically and internationally, and I just do not understand why it cannot bring itself to describe Hamas as terrorists, because that is what they are.

Munira Wilson: It is imperative that we get to the bottom of the terrible tragedy that unfolded at the hospital last night, and hold to account whoever was responsible. When I visited the region last year, I saw and heard just how difficult it is to supply medical care to the Palestinians. Hospitals across Gaza now face running out of food, fuel and water, and several have been given evacuation orders which, according to the World Health Organisation, patients will not survive. May I urge the Foreign Secretary once again to join the United Nations in calling for the immediate resumption of essential supplies to Gaza in line with international humanitarian law, which he says he keeps calling for?

James Cleverly: The hon. Lady has repeated a question that has been asked in the House a number of times, and she will have heard the answers that I have given on each of those occasions.

Alex Sobel: The grief and loss of millions in Gaza and in Israel have only been added to by the horrific and heinous attack on Al-Ahli Hospital. I was pleased that both the Foreign Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary reiterated our commitment to international law and the importance of bringing those who commit war crimes to justice while also not rushing to judgment. We have our own staff and international humanitarian agencies on the ground in hospitals in Gaza. What is the Foreign Secretary doing to ensure that those hospitals can carry on treating innocent civilians, working with the United Nations, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the hospitals themselves?

James Cleverly: We do of course speak with Israel, and, as I have said, we call on the Israelis to employ the professionalism of which they are understandably proud to minimise civilian casualties and to ensure that, where possible, civilian infrastructure—particularly schools, hospitals and religious sites—is not damaged. However, it is not by accident that Hamas habitually embed their terrorist operations in those very places, making the lives of Palestinians inevitably far more dangerous than they would be otherwise.

Joanna Cherry: I commend the UK Government for the announcement of an extra £10 million of aid for Gaza, but that will be of no use to the civilians who are trapped and injured there if it just piles up at the border. What analysis have the Foreign Secretary’s officials conducted of the legality of the Israeli authorities’ order to restrict supplies of water, food, fuel and electricity to Gaza, and the legality of their order to 1.1 million Palestinian civilians in northern Gaza to evacuate and travel south? Those are questions of legality, Foreign Secretary.

James Cleverly: The hon. and learned Lady will know that legal advice within the Department is for Ministers, to inform our decision making. The broader point is  that we do of course want to end the suffering that Palestinians are experiencing, and the best way of doing that is to remove the yoke of Hamas from their shoulders—which is why we support, within the framework of international law, Israel’s right to self-defence.

Seema Malhotra: Hundreds of my constituents have written to me expressing horror at the attacks that have happened in Israel and, now, at the unfolding catastrophe in Gaza. One of them has 25 family members in Gaza.
Al-Ahli is one of 22 hospitals in northern Gaza. In view of the hundreds killed last night, the children writing their names on the palms of their hands, and the mothers giving birth in the street as their homes are destroyed and their hospitals damaged, can the Foreign Secretary update the House on the action being taken with international partners now to ensure that hospitals and medical staff are being protected, given that he said earlier today that he was not sure of the situation relating to hospitals? It is estimated that there are 50,000 mothers in Gaza, including pregnant mothers. Will the Foreign Secretary update us on whether there is a plan for their healthcare, and on whether he is confident that that is being dealt with and urgently needed medical and humanitarian supplies are getting through?

James Cleverly: As I said earlier, in a fast-evolving situation during a conflict such as this, it is extremely difficult to conduct an up-to-date assessment of the ability of medical facilities in Gaza to maintain operations. We do of course want civilians and civilian infrastructure to be protected wherever possible, and we have communicated that to Israel, but let me say again that protecting them is made infinitely more difficult in these circumstances, because Hamas and other terrorist organisations specifically embed themselves in civilian infrastructure. That is a long-standing habit of such organisations.

Deidre Brock: I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s recognition of the need to exercise caution before leaping to conclusions, given the difficulty of verifying information in situations of crisis, but will he commit himself to personally making contact with different social media and technology companies, urging them directly to help prevent the spread of disinformation and prevent any information war relating to this horrific situation?

James Cleverly: I will not commit myself to doing that personally, but I know that the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport takes this issue extremely seriously. We are, of course, taking action to try to improve professionalism on social media platforms, and while I personally will not be making that contact directly, I know that it is being done, and will continue to be done, by the Government.

Emma Hardy: At this tragic time, I am driven by my desire for peace and the protection of innocents. While this tragic war continues, will the Foreign Secretary do everything he can to ensure that international law is followed? That, of course, includes the protection of hospitals, medical professionals, civilians and humanitarian aid for Gaza. However, this war will only end through  dialogue, so will the Foreign Secretary also do everything he can to keep the flame of hope for a negotiated peace settlement alive? Will he make that a priority for his Government, even when, at times, it seems such a very distant hope?

James Cleverly: The hon. Lady is entirely right about the need for us not to lose our desire to bring genuine, sustainable peace. As I have said, in these particularly difficult times that may seem a very far-off and, indeed, impossible aspiration, but we will remain relentlessly focused on bringing a lasting, sustainable peace to the Israeli and the Palestinian people, and indeed to the wider region. I can give the hon. Lady the assurance that while dealing with the immediate challenges, we will also keep that long-term aspiration at the forefront of our minds.

Jonathan Edwards: Will the British Government support Brazil’s motion calling for a humanitarian ceasefire, on which the UN Security Council will vote later today? If not, what are the grounds for not supporting it, given that the Brazilian text includes criticism of Hamas whereas the Russian text debated on Monday did not? If Hamas refuse to honour the ceasefire, as the Foreign Secretary fears, will they not be seen by the eyes of the world as not protecting the people whom they purport to represent?

James Cleverly: I have spoken to the Brazilian Foreign Minister about the text of the Security Council resolution, and we are liaising closely with the Brazilians and others, but I will not be able to give a commitment on our voting decision until the text is closed and the negotiations have been concluded.

Fleur Anderson: When I visited Israel and Palestine three weeks ago with a group of MPs, we met aid workers and health workers who say their last goodbyes to their families every morning because they do not know whether they will return. There is an urgent need to support them, and the UK public are being very generous in response to appeals. In the absence of humanitarian corridors—and I support him in arguing for them—can the Foreign Secretary update the House on efforts to work with UK-based agencies that are on the ground in Gaza to support the provision of mobile health clinics, medicines, food and water there?

James Cleverly: The distribution plan for the initial £10 million that the Prime Minister announced on Monday is still being worked on, but I can assure the hon. Lady that we are have very close relationships with non-governmental organisations and aid organisations based in the UK and operating in Gaza and the region. We will of course be liaising with them both in terms of getting an updated understanding of the situation on the ground and of maximising our support to the Palestinian people.

Richard Burgon: The most urgent priority must be to prevent the loss of any more civilian lives. To do so, the UN General Secretary has called for an immediate ceasefire. Leading humanitarian agencies such as Oxfam have also called for that. Surely the  Government must add their voice to that. Does the Foreign Secretary accept that, if they do not, many thousands more will die? Will he also withdraw his earlier remark that what is going on is not forced relocation? If he does not, I believe that he will come to regret that remark.

James Cleverly: Of course all of us want to see an end to the lives that have been lost, but we also recognise that Israel feels the need to take action to protect the lives of its citizens from the attacks emanating from Hamas and other terrorist organisations in Gaza. We have always said that, in our support for that activity, we call upon it to abide by humanitarian law, as its President has committed to doing.

Carol Monaghan: We need swift confirmation of who is responsible for the devastating attack on the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital, but the immediate priority is humanitarian support for those affected. The £10 million pledged by the UK Government is genuinely welcome, but can the Foreign Secretary explain how that aid is going to get to those affected, when Israel has closed all humanitarian corridors?

James Cleverly: The situation at the moment is that all humanitarian support going into Gaza is severely limited. There was an open, fluid border between Israel and Gaza, and tens of thousands of Palestinians from Gaza—tens of thousands of Gazans—worked in Israel daily and moved to and fro between Gaza and Israel. That crossing had to be closed, as did the Rafah crossing into Egypt, in response to the terrorist attacks that were perpetrated against Israel. We are working with the Israeli Government, the Egyptian Government and the international community to try to open up humanitarian corridors and we will continue to do so.

Christian Wakeford: The level of conflicting information and indeed disinformation coming from Gaza, and the irresponsible reporting of this as fact, including that coming from the BBC yesterday, is surely something that we should be condemning. What are the Foreign Secretary and his Department doing to correct this approach from broadcasters? Will he join me in saying the blame should not be cast until all the facts are known, especially to avoid inflaming tensions both here and in the middle east?

James Cleverly: This applies to us all, and particularly to broadcasters that have a high level of international standing. I am a big fan of the BBC and I know the huge influence that the voice of the BBC has internationally. Because of that influence, it is incredibly important that the BBC and other broadcasters are very careful in the reporting of this issue, because of the sensitivity and because of the implications not just in the region itself but here in the UK. That is a general plea to all broadcasters.

Kirsten Oswald: I represent a significant number of Jewish and Muslim constituents, many of whom have links to Israel and Palestine. My constituents are devastated and deeply concerned about the innocent civilians caught up in this horror and worried about the implications closer to home. The sights that we have seen overnight are horrifying. I will  not ask the Foreign Secretary for facts that he does not yet have, but we saw this human tragedy unfold further overnight, so I am asking for clear assurances on deliverable humanitarian aid now. It is reasonable that we ask him to look as hard as possible at a ceasefire, which would of course apply to all parties, because the innocent civilians in the region have to be our immediate priority. Can he also comment on the need for urgent international work towards a peaceful long-term solution for the region? The Israeli and Palestinian people deserve a bit more of a refocus on their long-term peace.

James Cleverly: The hon. Lady speaks with great passion, which I know is genuine. When I was first appointed to the then Foreign and Commonwealth Office in February 2020, I was the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa, and I can assure her that I have been personally focused on trying to find a resolution to this long-standing and painful issue the entire time I have been a Minister in the foreign service. I can assure her that the Government remain focused on that long-term peaceful resolution to this terrible situation. I can also assure her that we want to see the money that we have allocated actually turned into humanitarian support for the Palestinian people. That of course means having humanitarian access, but that is not happening at the moment. We will continue to use all our diplomatic effort to try to unlock those humanitarian access routes.

Stella Creasy: Residents in Walthamstow are mourning the loss of all civilian lives in this conflict. It is very personal to them. Rania and Sharone are two Walthamstow residents. Sharone is here at the moment meeting the Prime Minister about her parents who have been kidnapped by Hamas. Rania and seven members of her family are stuck in Gaza trying desperately to get out. I want to put on record our thanks to the Foreign Secretary and his officers for what they have done so far, but Sharone desperately needs help to get more information, from whatever parties or third-party agencies, about her parents and the medical welfare, and Rania is desperate to get her family back home to us in Walthamstow, but there is misinformation on the ground as well. Has the Foreign Secretary also considered whether the Kerem Shalom border could be looked at as one way to get humanitarian aid into Gaza to help those affected by this crisis and to bring our people home?

James Cleverly: I want to commend the work of our consular team that is dealing with families who are suffering loss, who are grieving and who are deeply fearful for the welfare of their families and loved ones overseas. I know that the hon. Lady and other hon. and right hon. Members will have constituents who are deeply fearful about what is going on. I would urge them all to use the consular contact details that have been provided, and I am more than happy to make sure that they are circulated to anyone who does not have them. We maintain contact with all those families who have got in contact with us and we try to maintain contact with those British nationals who are currently stuck in Gaza. I can give the hon. Lady and the House  an absolute assurance that we will not rest and we will not step back from our duty to support British nationals overseas.

Alison Thewliss: I have had many hundreds of emails over the past few days from constituents who are deeply distressed at the ongoing loss of human life in the middle east. I have been moved by the stories from many of the medical professionals on the ground in Gaza who have not only run out of medical supplies, including painkillers, but have no water with which to carry out their job. When can they expect to receive those essential items?

James Cleverly: The hon. Lady asks a pertinent and important question. At this stage, I am not able to give her any credible assurances on the timescales around this. Obviously, we are working with the international community and the countries in the region to try to get humanitarian access. We have set aside the money, as the Prime Minister said at Prime Minister’s questions earlier today, and we have forward-loaded some of our experts to ensure that any opportunity to provide humanitarian support can be utilised at very short notice, but the truth is that I am not able to give her assurances on timescales.

Eleanor Laing: The House is grateful to the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues for being here for an hour and a half. There are a great many questions to be asked, and I am glad that today everybody who wished to ask questions on behalf of their constituents has had the opportunity to do so. Let nobody doubt the fact that every Member of this House thinks this is a most serious and sad situation.

Bills Presented

International Freedom of Religion or Belief Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Fiona Bruce, supported by Dame Andrea Leadsom, Sarah Champion, Sir Desmond Swayne, Sir Stephen Timms, Jim Shannon, Miriam Cates, Dr Lisa Cameron, Tim Farron, Bob Blackman, Caroline Lucas and Taiwo Owatemi, presented a Bill to require the Prime Minister to appoint a Special Envoy for International Freedom of Religion or Belief; to establish an Office of the Special Envoy; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 November, and to be printed (Bill 373).

Government of Wales (Referendum on Devolution) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Rob Roberts presented a Bill to make provision for a referendum on devolution in Wales; to provide that no further such referendum may take place within twenty five years; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 November, and to be printed (Bill 374).

Brain Tumours

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Siobhain McDonagh: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to set a target for the number of glioblastoma patients who take part in clinical trials each year; to require training for medical oncologists to include training relating to brain cancers; to provide that any drug that has been licensed for use on tumours must be trialled on people with brain tumours; to make provision in relation to neuro-oncology multidisciplinary teams in the NHS, including a requirement that each such team must include a medical oncologist; to require manufacturers of drugs licensed to treat tumours to make those drugs available in specified circumstances for clinical trials relating to brain tumours; and for connected purposes.
I hope the House will hear me today, because I have made this speech before and have absolutely no doubt that I will make it again. In fact, I will make this speech over and over again until we have turned a corner.
My speech today is about glioblastoma brain tumours. It is the deadly disease that my wonderful sister, Margaret, suffered from for 18 months, and it is a deadly disease with which over 3,200 people are diagnosed every year. For every one of those 3,200 people, there was a time when a doctor sat them down in a room and gave them the bad news—the worst news. I can talk about that because, sadly, I have been in that room with Margaret. What they tell people is that there is no hope. The life expectancy for someone diagnosed with a glioblastoma is, on average, nine months and, after a basic course of treatment, the NHS leaves them to die.
Those who have the money travel abroad for private treatment, safe in the knowledge that the NHS has nothing to offer them. Those who have a support network but who are not rich enough, are forced to crowdfund and to fly thousands of miles to access treatment. The rest, sadly, have to accept their fate. There is no hope. They just have to wait. If they are lucky, they get to nine months.
In March, when I made my first speech about glioblastoma, I felt the same way that I have always felt. I was filled with hopelessness, appalled that the disease has been ignored for so long and left at the bottom of the “too difficult” pile for 30 years. The Government have not touched the sides of the £40 million they allocated for research into glioblastoma. After five years, they have spent just £12 million, a quarter of the amount promised. Universities have ignored glioblastoma for years, too. Glioblastoma is not even on the research agenda. Many universities are focusing their resources on trials on mice, neglecting the 3,200 real people who are crying out for new research and clinical trials.
It is a pretty grim landscape, but it has not been like this for people diagnosed with many other cancers. People with breast, bowel and lung cancers have had  the hope of research, clinical trials and funding  promises being kept. The Government, universities and pharmaceutical companies have come together to make a concerted effort to change things, and they did.
Just look at what we have done for people with lung cancer. In 2010, only one in 10 people diagnosed with lung cancer survived for five years. By 2020, life expectancy  had doubled. In 2010, 83% of people diagnosed with breast cancer survived for five years. By 2020, 86% got to live for five years. In 2010, 58% of people diagnosed with bowel cancer survived for five years. In 2020, we managed to bring that figure up to 60%. However, for people diagnosed with a glioblastoma, there has been no progress and no hope that things will get better. In 2010, the five-year survival rate for people diagnosed with a glioblastoma was 11.9%. Ten years later, in 2020, the survival rate was almost identical: just 12.9%.
Although the treatment and life expectancy of people diagnosed with a glioblastoma has not changed in 30 years, I feel more hopeful today because, since I made this speech in March, I have met the Minister for Health and Secondary Care, the hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince), and the shadow Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting). I have also met clinicians, charities, families and universities, and last week I met representatives of the top pharmaceutical companies in the UK to discuss why we are where we are. Having built up a clearer picture of where we are, I know that if we try something different, we can give people diagnosed with this deadly disease some hope.
So here is something different. First, we need a target of getting 200 glioblastoma patients each year into clinical trials on drugs that have the potential to change the course of the disease. That would be 1,000 patients over the lifetime of a Parliament. With those trials, we could begin to understand what works and what does not.
Secondly, the NHS should take every drug that has already been licensed to deal with other tumours and apply them to clinical trials on glioblastoma brain tumours. That has not yet happened because glioblastoma is a very small target market for the pharmaceutical industry, and such investment is not very profitable. The Government must either encourage or force the pharmaceutical companies to provide the drugs for these trials. Applying those existing drugs would be a cheap way to make a huge difference. It is sometimes the only way that makes a difference. Universities should act as partners in these trials. They should be snapping up the opportunity to carry out research in this area, instead of leaving the field untouched.
Thirdly, the NHS should ensure that every neuro-oncology multidisciplinary team has a medical oncologist who is a core member and is required to attend meetings to discuss patients, so that brain tumour patients are not left in a corner of the ward because there is no specialist arguing for them. Unless a neuro-oncologist is in the room, we will not benefit from their ideas or expertise.
Fourthly, the NHS should require that every doctor training to be a medical oncologist should go through a mandatory course on brain tumours. At the moment, the Royal College of Physicians requires no compulsory training. Doctors have to take two courses on bowel cancer as part of their training, but not a single course on brain tumours. The reason why there is nobody on those wards or in the research infrastructure is because nobody is required to do the training. Who can apply for the research funds if there is nobody in the field?
If we do those four things, we have a chance of some hope. I have not just whisked up this four-point plan; it is the result of meeting experts in the field, including  none other than Dr Paul Mulholland, Europe’s leading brain tumour oncologist. If we carry out those four steps, experts think we can drastically improve treatment for everyone diagnosed with a glioblastoma. Some have even said that we could find a cure for glioblastoma within 10 years.
Einstein famously said, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” That is what we have been doing for the past 30 years with the treatment of glioblastoma. We can do better, and Margaret’s legacy demands nothing less.

Eleanor Laing: The hon. Lady will know that the whole House sends her our sincere sympathy for the loss of her sister, and that we all recognise the courage it takes for her to come to the House to speak about this very difficult subject. When I put the Question, I am not going to call for the “Noes,” because I know that nobody will say “No.”
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Siobhain McDonagh, Tracey Crouch, Greg Smith, Steve Brine, Mr Alistair Carmichael, Mrs Sharon Hodgson, Tony Lloyd, Dame Meg Hillier, Mr Clive Betts, Jon Cruddas, Paul Blomfield and Sarah Owen present the Bill.
Siobhain McDonagh accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 November, and to be printed (Bill 375).

Energy Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Energy Bill [Lords] for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 9 May 2023 (Energy Bill [Lords] (Programme)):

Consideration of Lords Message

(1) Proceedings on the Lords Message shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement.

Subsequent stages

(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(3) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Andrew Bowie.)
Question agreed to.

Energy Bill [Lords]

Consideration of Lords message

Clause 272 - Local supply for community energy

Andrew Bowie: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 274B. Lords amendment 274B was added to the Bill during consideration in the Lords of Commons amendments. As was set out, the Government did not agree with the inclusion of the amendment and, after further careful consideration, we remain of the same view today. The amendment commits the Government to a consultation
“on the barriers preventing the development of community energy schemes”
and sets out whom we would consult. It also commits the Government to bringing forward proposals to remove identified barriers to community energy.
However, as a result of working closely with colleagues who have made representations during the passage of the Bill, on 5 September I set out the Government’s commitment to consult on the barriers that the sector faces when developing projects. As a part of that process, we are involving the community energy sector in designing the consultation, through our community energy contact group. The group has already had constructive discussion on this work at its meeting earlier this month. The Government have already made a clear commitment to the consultation—I announced that commitment at the Dispatch Box in September. We therefore think it is unnecessary, and of no additional value, to put the specifics of it in primary legislation.

Jeremy Wright: I thank my hon. Friend for all the work he has done to put in place not just this consultation but the fund, which will be tremendously useful for these purposes too. Does he accept that there is a sense of urgency here; that there is a need to get on with removing these barriers? If he is not content with the timetable set out in this amendment, will he give the House an indication of what he thinks the right timetable is, so that community energy companies and others can know where they stand and get on with the good work that he and I are both in favour of?

Andrew Bowie: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his intervention. Of course, I agree with him that pace is of the utmost importance in supporting community energy groups around the country, which is why the contact group has already met earlier this month and is engaging already on identifying the barriers that the consultation will seek to address and, thus, informing the Government as to what we need to do. That work is ongoing, which is why we do not feel that this amendment is required; we have begun that process already.
There are other issues with the amendment that mean we cannot support its inclusion in the Bill. The amendment would place an additional obligation on the Government to bring forward proposals to remove these barriers within a specific timeframe. As I just said, we cannot be  sure what barriers will be raised in the consultation, or what the proper response to those barriers should be, until we have carried it out. We therefore cannot create a legislative obligation to remove barriers within a six-month timeframe when we are not aware of the nature of the barriers and have not yet properly analysed them.

Chris Skidmore: I appreciate the Minister’s argument, but that is technically not what the amendment says; there is no requirement for legislative reform, only one to bring forward proposals. It is unfair to mislead the House—

Eleanor Laing: Order. It is not misleading the House; the Minister might possibly have done so inadvertently, but he would not have been misleading the House.

Chris Skidmore: My apologies to the Minister. I did not mean to make accusations so strongly. The challenge here is that subsection (4) of the new clause set out in the amendment contains no reference to legislation such as the Minister suggested. That is my point.

Andrew Bowie: I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. It is the Department’s view and mine that the amendment would result in legislation being required. As I said, we absolutely understand the importance of this, which is why I launched the consultation process as I did. It is why we are engaging so closely with the sector and all interested parties so that we can get this consultation up and running and out as soon as possible, and identify those barriers preventing community energy groups from accessing the market. I know that he has a passion in this area and holds strong convictions on it. I would be happy to continue to work with him, alongside the community energy contact group, as we develop our proposals for the consultation.
I also wish to reassure the House that we will continue to work closely with the sector to support its important work, both through our existing support, including, for example, the £10 million community energy fund, and in carrying out the consultation, to which we have already committed.

Eleanor Laing: I call the Opposition spokesman.

Alan Whitehead: That was a disappointing and specious defence by the Minister of his intention not to proceed with these proposals from the other place. He knows perfectly well what the barriers to developing community energy are; we have debated them at length during the passage of the Bill. So I am not sure it is going to take a forensic panel of inquiry to find out what those details are before the Government can act on any of these things.
We are on the last lap of the Energy Bill and it is particularly disappointing that we are hearing what we are hearing today about this Lords amendment. The Bill, which has been with us in both Houses for well over a year now, puts into place many of the essential tools that will enable energy to progress towards a low-carbon, net zero future. The Opposition have consistently supported the Bill, while endeavouring during  its passage to strengthen it in its low carbon mission. We have tried to place into the Bill further elements to make it the best it can be in pursuit of its low-carbon mission, and there have been some junctures during its passage when the Minister has endeavoured to take on board those suggestions for strengthening it, in some instances by drafting a Government amendment that meets the purport of our amendments. I am grateful to the Minister for those changes to the Bill and for the collegiate way in which the Bill has been debated and decided upon.
However, there are exceptions to that, one of which is in front of us today. As the Minister states, it relates to community and local energy, which I am sure Members will agree is and will be an important part of the future low carbon energy landscape. It has the potential to make a serious contribution to our local carbon arsenal of plant, while being funded and supported by the community in which that plant is situated, making it easier to develop and able to restore the benefits of its operation to the community itself.
Labour has committed to providing strong support for community energy, including the assistance of Great British Energy, the company we propose to set up to support the development of local low carbon plant with community energy schemes. The potential for such schemes to contribute to the overall installation of low carbon systems in the UK is immense, with perhaps 8 GW of install capacity added to the national stock through such local schemes. I remind the House that that is getting on towards the equivalent capacity of three nuclear power stations such as Hinkley Point C.
We know that at the moment there are substantial legislative and administrative obstacles to the development of community energy, most notably the ability of community schemes to trade their output effectively. During the passage of the Bill, we tried to introduce clauses to address those problems. Indeed, when the Bill first came to the House from another place, their lordships had inserted clauses to the Bill to that effect. Unfortunately, the Government deleted them during the Bill’s Commons passage.
As I am sure the House will appreciate, their lordships quite rightly feel very strongly about the issue, so they attempted to restore those passages to the Bill when it returned to the Lords for ping pong. However, again, just recently, the Government rejected those proposals.

John Redwood: One of the barriers will be the shortage of grid and cable capacity to link into. Is the hon. Gentleman envisaging some kind of privileged access or some solution to the grid shortage?

Alan Whitehead: That is not quite the subject of our debate, but the right hon. Member can see that we envisage an energetic and far-reaching proposal to develop the grid in such a way that those grid shortages are overcome, so that the grid is able to service the low carbon economy in the way we would all want it to do. In the context of what we are discussing, I remind the right hon. Member that this would be about distributed grids at a local level, rather than the national high-level grids. We need to take further action to strengthen and sort out grids at that level.
The Lords clearly continue to feel strongly about this issue; as we can see, they have sent back to us today a modified version of the original amendment, requiring the Government to consult on changes to assist community energy and, importantly, to set a timeline for proposals to be brought forward to remove barriers to the development of community energy.
Of course, there are others in this House who feel strongly about this issue. The proposals that the Lords have now twice tried to have inserted into the Bill are essentially the wording of a group called Power for the People, which suggested wording for a community energy enabling Bill for which it campaigned to secure signed-up support from parliamentarians. It did indeed secure substantial support from parliamentarians who feel strongly on the issue of community energy. Some 325 Members signed up in support, including 130 Conservative Members and, perhaps most remarkably, 22 members of the Government, including six Treasury Ministers, the present Chancellor and the Minister himself, as I often seek to remind him. There is no lack of support in the House for the principles and practice of community energy.
The Lords amendment seeks to acknowledge and further that support by putting forward very reasonable and, one might have thought, pretty non-contentious wording to add to the Bill. It is inexplicable to me that the Government should seek to resist these proposals in the way they have. Yes, they will say, as the Minister has said, that they have set up a community energy fund of £10 million over two years, which is welcome, and they have verbally indicated that, at some stage, there will be a consultation on barriers to supply, but there are no timelines for that and no commitment to move positively forward from it. That is what this amendment seeks to put right.
As I have said, the Minister appears already to be a signed-up supporter of community energy action, and I would fear for his own emotional wellbeing if he were forced today to perform another policy backflip and acquiesce in yet another Government repudiation of themselves in rejecting this latest Lords amendment. Instead, let us end the extended passage of the Bill on a high note, and all around the House agree on both the importance of community energy and the measures we will need to take to ensure it thrives in the future.

Chris Skidmore: I rise in support of the amendment. It is very similar to an amendment that I tabled during the previous stage of the Bill in the Commons. I echo the comments that have been made about the amendment being uncontentious. It calls for additional consultation—if the Government want me to do that, I will do it myself for the community energy groups.
The net zero review held several roundtables with a number of community energy groups across the country. Indeed, they were one of the reasons why pillar 4 in the final report, “Mission Zero: Independent Review of Net Zero”, was
“Net Zero and the Community”.
One of the key findings of the review was that over half of all net zero decisions will need to be taken not by Government or Parliament, but outside this Chamber. We can turbocharge our transition towards net zero if we can empower and support more community energy groups to take the action that needs to be taken.
Indeed, the only single wind turbine that has been built in the United Kingdom in the past year has been delivered through community energy. I am proud that it is in my home city of Bristol. Ambition Lawrence Weston has seen its 4.25 MW turbine built and it will now power 3,500 homes for the community energy project. The £4 million to pay for the project was raised by the group—it did not come cap in hand to Government—and now it will see an economic return of £140,000 a year as a result of the energy that will be sold to the grid. That is just one example of the myriad examples of net zero projects that demonstrate the economic opportunity that net zero can provide.
In Bristol, we also have the Bristol City Leap, which is a result of a £7 million investment from Bristol City Council. There has been £424 million of inward investment from the American company Ameresco Ltd to decarbonise the city’s district heat network. Community energy points the way for demonstrating that net zero is not a cost, despite what some may say, but an opportunity. We must seize that opportunity now, not just to tackle the climate crisis or reach our nationally determined contribution for 2030, because net zero is about 2030 not just about 2050. We cannot keep kicking the can down the road, somehow suggesting we are going to meet our carbon budgets. Meeting them now, today, is absolutely vital to ensure we can meet our climate commitments in future carbon budgets.
Community energy is here and now. We can get on with delivering net zero with the tools and technologies we have, and, above all, with the people we have—individuals and communities across the country. Community Energy England has 220 groups, a third of which would like to build onshore wind turbines, like Ambition Lawrence Weston. They want to get on with it. They are not often being paid to do this; they do it because they recognise what they can return to their communities. As a Conservative who believes in the power of local communities, we as a Government should be supporting local communities to the hilt to deliver on energy action.
When we look at the future of the grid, everything points to the fact that creating flexibilities on the edge of the grid enhances our energy security, allows us to return energy to the grid, frees up energy capacity elsewhere, and frees up our demand on oil and gas elsewhere. This is a no-brainer. I shall support Lords amendment 274B if it is pushed to a vote, although I will not push it to a vote myself. Nevertheless, it is vital that we send a clear message not just that we are committed to the net zero pathway—because it is the right and the economically important thing to do—but that we recognise that, when it comes to net zero, we need a big bang moment. We need to create little platoons of individuals and communities that are going out there writing their own net zero narratives and stories. For that reason, I will be supporting this Lords amendment today.

Eleanor Laing: I call the SNP spokesman.

Dave Doogan: “Specious”, said His Majesty’s Opposition spokesperson about the arguments against this amendment, to which I would add, having listened to the Minister’s defence of the Government’s position on community energy, that it was also one of  the more tendentious arguments that we have heard in this Chamber. I am not convinced that the Minister is absolutely fully signed up to that which he has been put out today to defend. I think he knows the importance of community generation and he is not content with the feet dragging that his Government are forcing him to come here to defend. This is another extremely negative decision by a Government who show no let-up in their disdain for community ambition for disaggregated generation infrastructure, or, in fact, for the climate. If we contrast that ambition with the Tories’ now messianic devotion to the cult of nuclear, we see that next year everyone across these islands will be well shot of them, and nowhere more so will that be clear than in the energy space.
Lords amendment 274B is a perfectly sensible ambition. It is a pragmatic amendment by their lordships. It is balanced and deliverable, works with the grain of local ambition, and is destined to unlock significant value in the green transition. It would unlock local enterprise and it would unlock value-add in the real economy and promote community wellbeing. There is nothing not to recommend about this ambition; it is quite clear that it has positives for the people and for our communities. It is no wonder, then, that this Tory Government will reject it out of hand. They have no interest in empowering the people or powering the green revolution. They would rather throw billions on to our energy bills to pay for nuclear, while they proscribed onshore wind in England up until September this year, leaving Scotland to do all the heavy lifting as usual.
Why will these Tories not follow the SNP Scottish Government’s lead in this priority? The Scottish Government’s community and renewable energy scheme promotes community energy ownership across Scotland. CARES continues to help communities engage, participate in and benefit from the transition to net zero. Since 2010, CARES has offered advice and support to more than 900 organisations and assisted in the delivery of 600 community and locally owned renewable projects throughout Scotland, offering funding in the process of £58 million. Just to clarify, that is just in Scotland, which rather puts in the shade the £10 million on offer from the English Government to English community generation—whenever that happens. CARES accelerates progress towards the Scottish Government’s target of 2 GW of renewable energy to be locally or community owned by 2030. The scheme assists in the delivery of both the Scottish Government’s energy strategy and heat in buildings strategy through the provision of loan finance, grant funding and specialist advice.
In Scotland, we see a Government of the people working with the people for their shared ambitions, but here in Westminster we see only the veneer of an Administration masking the infighting, bitter division and self-interest of that Tory party.
The Scottish Government’s community good practice principles, which have been widely adopted across the renewables industry, promote the provision of community benefits at a national level. They promote the equivalent of £5,000 per installed megawatt per annum, index-linked for the life of the project. Over £22.8 million has been paid out in community benefits to Scottish communities in the 12 months since August 2021. England has a very  similar scheme but—and it is a big Tory-shaped but—as these funds are in the greater part principally born of onshore wind development, and the Tories introduced a de facto ban on onshore wind in 2015, English communities have lost out on millions and millions of pounds in community funding thanks to this dysfunctional UK/English Government.
The Government’s contorted priorities directly increase reliance on insecure and costly gas generation, and they are continuing to persist with the grotesque parody that they are on the side of working people by rowing back further on measures that would save households money and protect our planet by backtracking on home heating, insulation and electric vehicle targets. The Tories are busy damaging communities, damaging investor confidence and damaging the planet.
In the midst of an energy price crisis, when low-cost, clean, home-produced energy has never been more important, there is enormous potential across these islands for growth in small-scale renewable energy generation—especially by community groups that can provide cheaper, greener power and then reinvest the profits locally. Community energy schemes currently generate a mere 0.5% of the UK’s electricity—it is depressing. This could grow twentyfold in 10 years, according to studies by the Environmental Audit Committee, but only if we get action from a Westminster Government. We must also bear in mind how much of that 0.5% of community generation is thanks to the foresight and financial investment of the Scottish Government—investment that the Scottish Government must find from elsewhere in their budget, because if  the English Government do not spend it, it is not consequentialised.
That energy could power 2.2 million homes and save 2.5 million tonnes of CO2 emissions a year, while creating over 30,000 jobs. As Members on the Government’s own Benches are pointing out, these things are not an impediment to economic growth, but a driver of economic growth. Furthermore, they would reduce dependence on energy imports, all the while reducing reliance on foreign energy.
A functioning UK Government would embrace this remarkable potential, accept the Lords amendment and seek to enable rather than disable local supply. The regulatory barriers that prevent community energy schemes from selling power to local customers are incongruous with both our climate emergency and the scale of current energy prices. The new £10 million community energy fund is nothing but a paltry smokescreen, which will not scratch the surface and is a veil simply for this Tory Government’s inaction and hostility to the ambition of the people and their drive for net zero. The Government cannot hold a candle to the Scottish Government’s record in this area, but it is high time they at least tried to do so.

Wera Hobhouse: Let us remind ourselves what Lords amendment 247B is about. Within 18 months of the Act being passed, the Secretary of State would be required to carry out a consultation and publish a report on the barriers preventing the development of community energy schemes. It would also require the Government to respond and bring forward proposals to  remove the barriers preventing the development of community energy schemes within six months of the consultation closing. That is the bare minimum that the Government could do. It would at least move the issue forward, and yet the Government still put forward a motion to disagree with it.
The Government say that they have already committed to consult on the barriers to local supply, but we still have not been given a date when that will actually happen. The Lords amendment would stop the Government’s current policy of dither and delay and require them to get on with taking community energy schemes forward.
Ultimately, the Government should not need to consult, because they are already well aware of what barriers face the sector; Community Energy England has told them repeatedly over the last five years. It is really disappointing, because there is even an all-party parliamentary group for community energy. Officials have engaged with the APPG, yet nothing has happened because the Government, despite warm words, are not really committed to community energy.
In 2021, the Environmental Audit Committee published a series of recommendations to encourage community energy. The only recommendation taken forward so far is the community energy fund, and even that does not yet have a launch date. I hope that the Minister will tell me when the launch date will be. When will we see the fund for community energy?
We are in the middle of an energy crisis. Bills have skyrocketed. Access to cheap, clean, home-produced energy has never been more vital. We need to secure our energy supply, protect consumers and reach net zero. As we have always said in the debate about reaching net zero, we need to take people with us. That is not about delaying targets, as the Government have just done, but about encouraging people to walk the difficult journey to net zero. Community energy does exactly that. Why are the Government not supporting it with all their might? Why are the Government not even supporting the Lords amendment? It is the bare minimum.
Community energy has the potential to power 2.2 million homes and save 2.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions every year. All it needs is a Government who give it the support that it deserves. I have seen at first hand the benefits that community energy can bring. In my Bath constituency, Bath and West Community Energy has installed enough renewables to power 4,500 homes. It has invested the money that it has earned back into my local community, donating nearly £330,000 to support environmental and fuel poverty schemes. That is what community energy can do. What is there not to support? Why are the Government not committed to doing all that they can to ensure that community energy projects can be delivered?

John Redwood: rose—

Wera Hobhouse: Unfortunately, the Government are unwilling to see the potential of community energy. Community energy schemes currently generate just 0.5% of the UK’s electricity. That is because—we know all this; we have said it many times—the financial, technical and operational requirements involved in becoming a licensed supplier put initial costs at more than £1 million. That is a massive risk for any new start-up or small scheme.  Any community energy projects such as the one in Bath can exist only because it has reached a certain size. That is one of the problems.
The Government are aware of that fact, but voted to remove Lords amendments to rectify it. The Government need to start matching their supportive words about community energy with action. The most effective step that they could take would be to enable local supply and remove the regulatory barriers that prevent community energy schemes from selling their power to local customers. That could include a community right to connect to the grid ahead of commercial projects that deliver little or no social and community benefit. I am sure that I have answered the question that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) was about to ask.
Community energy schemes are ready to provide clean, green energy that helps local communities. They are not asking for a huge amount of public money, just for the Government to stop blocking the system. In this time of energy uncertainty, having a reliable local supplier can only be positive. I fully support Lords amendment 274B to hold the Government’s feet to the fire on community energy. I urge everyone in this House to do the same.

Andrew Bowie: I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for contributing to this afternoon’s debate. I will first respond to some of the comments made by my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan). I know that he does not like it very much, and would like it if it were not the case, but he is absolutely wrong and I have to correct him: this is not the English Government; this is the British Government. We are the Government of the entire United Kingdom—a United Kingdom of which Scotland remains a part and, if the opinion polls are anything to go by, will continue to remain a part of for quite some time.
The hon. Member has an obsession with decrying the nuclear industry as something that the Tories alone are obsessed with. Tell that to the Governments of France, Sweden, Finland, Italy, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Canada, the United States of America and more, who are reinvesting and restarting their own civil nuclear industry, as is the Labour Welsh Government, who are very much in favour of further investment in, and development of, nuclear. He raised the lack of funding for community energy projects; £10 million over two years is an incredibly generous offer. That is alongside other UK growth funding such as the UK shared prosperity fund, which community energy groups can access by working in partnership with their local authorities.
The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) asked when the community energy fund will be launched. It will be launched as soon as possible. We are aiming to launch applications to the fund as soon as we physically can.
My opposite number, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), is right that we have had a productive and constructive relationship when it comes to discussion of the Bill. The 72 hours that we spent together in Committee were beneficial to everybody’s health, I am sure, and to the development of Government policy on this matter. We have come some way from where we were when we started discussing how we would support community energy. He rightly praised the role that the sector has played during the  passage of the Bill. The community energy sector has been incredibly receptive to our commitment to a consultation and to the £10 million fund.

John Redwood: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Did he notice that the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) would not give way? She was arguing—the typical position of her party—that it knew all the answers before the consultation, yet it still wanted a very long, drawn-out consultation to avoid doing the answers.

Andrew Bowie: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I also noticed that—

Wera Hobhouse: Will the Minister give way?

Andrew Bowie: Two seconds. I will respond to the first intervention before I give way to the hon. Lady. I also noticed that she managed to answer a question that had not even been asked by my right hon. Friend.

Wera Hobhouse: The amendment also says that the Government should respond to the barriers and put forward proposals. That is really what we want to know: what is the response to any consultation? The Government have failed to give any response to that.

Andrew Bowie: We cannot respond to a consultation that has not been launched yet. We are in the process right now of working with the community energy contact group. In fact, it has already met. Work is under way right now to develop the consultation, identify what the barriers to market are, and get out there and support the community energy sector, as the Government are determined to do.

Dave Doogan: Will the Minister give way?

Andrew Bowie: Yes, of course—I am delighted to give way.

Dave Doogan: The Minister is very kind. He was re-emphasising the importance of the £10 million community energy investment that he is making in England over two years. The Scottish Government have been investing £5.5 million every year for the last 13 years. If he thinks that his investment is outstanding, how would he characterise the Scottish Government’s investment?

Andrew Bowie: I welcome all Governments’ investment in support of community energy projects across the United Kingdom, but this is a sharp change from the last time the hon. Member came to this place, when he was decrying the fact that we were not extending community energy packages across the United Kingdom. I think I had to inform and educate him that there was already a community benefits package in Scotland, operated by the Scottish Government. Yes, there are problems with that scheme, and we will learn from the difficulties that it has faced. That is why I am so sure that the scheme that we are launching—the £10 million to support community energy projects the length and breadth of the country—is the right one, working in tandem with  the funds that are already available north of the border for community energy projects in my constituency and, indeed, in his.
The hon. Member for Southampton, Test spoke about previous amendments on community energy. We have been clear that they would not provide the best outcomes for consumers. A right to local supply already exists, and Ofgem has existing flexibility to award supply licences that are restricted to certain geographies. We continue to believe that it is a commercial matter left to suppliers.
Lastly, I turn to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore). Six months may be too soon, frankly, to adequately analyse the outcomes of the consultation. It must fully take into consideration wider interdependencies in the energy system. We will always aim to respond in a timely manner, but I would not want to put a strict timeframe in legislation.
The Government support our route to net zero. The Government are taking action to ensure that we are more energy secure and energy independent, and the Government are supporting community energy projects the length and breadth of the country. For that reason, we should disagree to the Lords amendment before us.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 274B.

The House divided: Ayes 293, Noes 181.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 274B disagreed to.
Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to draw up a Reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing with their amendment 274B;
That Andrew Bowie, Joy Morrissey, Mark Jenkinson, Chris Clarkson, Dr Alan Whitehead, Christian Wakeford and Dave Doogan be members of the Committee;
That Andrew Bowie be the Chair of the Committee;
That three be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Julie Marson.)
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

Civil Aviation

Jesse Norman: I beg to move,
That the draft Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) (No. 2) Regulations 2023, which were laid before this House on 18 July, be approved.
To the casual and untutored eye, this might seem a very small piece of legislation to bring to the Floor of the House of Commons. However, it is not only important to the sector but a useful illustration of the work of Ministers and parliamentarians in Committee, so it is nice to have a chance to focus on these quite technical and not especially controversial regulations.
The regulations will be made under powers conferred by the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021, which also rejoices in the name ATMUA. Following the UK’s departure from the European Union, that legislation created a more flexible set of powers for Ministers to implement alleviation measures for aircraft slots related to the impacts of covid-19, subject to a vote in both Houses. That allows the UK to adapt its approach so as to minimise disruption to consumers and support the recovery of the aviation sector. Under ordinary circumstances, airlines must operate aircraft slots 80% of the time to retain the right to those same slots the following year—that is known as the 80:20 rule, or the “use it or lose it” rule. It is designed to encourage a more efficient use of scarce airport capacity. As a result of the effect of covid-19 on air travel demand, however, alleviation from the rule has been provided since summer 2020.
The Department has seen a strong recovery in passenger demand during 2023, but there remains uncertainty and a lack of resilience in the industry, and demand on some routes remains below the levels seen before the pandemic. Those factors affect both demand, such as the number of returning passengers, as well as supply, such as aircraft availability and staffing. They add to what has been termed the long “covid tail” in rebuilding resilience in the sector. Thus, aircraft that were out of service during the pandemic now spend much longer in maintenance and overhaul than would normally be the case. That phenomenon is compounded by difficulties stemming from the pandemic, which have affected access to spare parts through global supply chains. Although the industry has taken steps to address those challenges, they are expected to remain an issue during 2024.
The Government have therefore designed a package of measures for the winter 2023 season to mitigate the adverse effects of that loss of resilience. The normal 80:20 rule on slots usage has been retained. However, it has been combined with some limited flexibility through a small pre-season hand-back allowance and a continuation of the previously adopted measures on the justified non-utilisation of slots. The Government have focused the measures on a return to business as usual. We are mindful of the need to balance supporting the sector through sensible and proportionate measures to aid its recovery and protecting consumers from disruption, with the need to avoid excessive alleviation, which could distort competition.
There are two key provisions. The enhanced justified non-utilisation of slots provisions were first introduced for winter 2022. They act as a safety net for airlines if  new restrictions are introduced and they can justify not using slots. They protect the airlines’ historic rights to slots in scenarios in which any reintroduced covid-19 measures might severely reduce demand or the viability of a route. However, for any requests for justified non-utilisation of slots, a rationale must be given to the independent co-ordinator for assessment of its merits against the provisions.
The second provision is a limited slots hand-back. For this winter season, the Government will again allow carriers to claim alleviation on up to 5% of their slots at any airport handed back before the start of the season, as was done for this summer. The Government have offered that opportunity in the expectation that the industry will deliver a realistic schedule for winter 2023, thereby minimising last-minute cancellations and delays. The opportunity to hand back slots before the start of the season has been particularly useful in ensuring that airlines deliver a robust schedule, and has helped to provide certainty to consumers that scheduled flights will operate. The measures will cover the winter 2023 season. The Department for Transport is considering whether further alleviation may be required for future seasons.
Through these measures, the Government aim to strike a balance between supporting the sector and minimising disruption to consumers while encouraging recovery and ensuring the efficient use of slots.

Mike Kane: The Minister said that the regulations before the House are a small piece of legislation. He is right, and scholars of Parliament will look back at this motion coming to the Floor of the House as a strange occurrence. Usually, we are up in the gods in this place, in a draughty, dusty Committee room off a long corridor in this great edifice, but this Government have run out of legislation to consider in those Committee rooms, and have to bring this to the Floor of the House. They have run out of time, and they are fast running out of track.
When we talk about the general demise of transport in the United Kingdom, we can see that the Government came to Manchester to cancel HS2—they cancelled it to my city in my city. They announced a tram to my constituency that was opened in 2014, and they launched Network North, which sounds like a dodgy 1970s ITV franchise and was done on the back of a fag packet. The industry was not impressed by the fact that the Secretary of State—who is not here—was making up conspiracy theories on the floor of the conference hall about 20 mph zones and 15-minute cities.

Mike Penning: The hon. Gentleman is very generous in giving way, but can I ask him what part of his speech is to do with slots and aviation?

Mike Kane: I am coming on to that. This is about the general demise of transport—about abandoning the centre ground and abandoning an industry. We do not even have a Minister for aviation or for maritime in the House of Commons, whereas we in Labour support aviation and maritime to the hilt. When the Secretary of State was making up those conspiracy theories, the Minister—who is so keen on active travel: he walks the  walk, talks the talk, and rides his bike as well—must have had his head in his hands. We in Labour offer industry reassurance and hope that things will get better.
To respond to the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning), let us talk about the motion at hand. As we know, the “use it or lose it” rule was relaxed throughout the pandemic: it was dropped to 70:30 to ensure that no environmentally damaging ghost flights were taking off. That was the right decision. Slots are commercially important and highly prized by airlines, giving them a monopoly on a route. Since the pandemic, there has been a strong recovery in passenger numbers and we are all grateful for that. However, the aviation industry can still exhibit a lack of resilience and some uncertainty at times and some routes are still not yet at capacity.
The pandemic has left airlines and airports with little resilience and tight staffing numbers and, as the Minister has mentioned, there are issues with aircraft availability and the global supply chain. With the benefit of hindsight, the Government’s failure to support our world-class aviation sector during the pandemic has led us here. We, as well as workforce representatives and unions, warned the Government that, if tens of thousands of skilled, trained workers were sacked or let go during the pandemic, it would be nigh on impossible to get back up to full speed—to be dynamic and react to industry demands.
The two main provisions in the regulations act as a safety net for airlines. The first allows them to justify not using a slot if new restrictions are to be introduced on particular routes. Of course, I hope that that will never be necessary, but if it should be, what data and metrics will be used? Does the Minister have an agreed plan with industry on this?
The other main provision is a limited slot hand-back of up to 5% of all slots, which are to be handed back before the start of the season. The justification for that is to ensure minimum delay and cancellations for consumers; however, the autumn timetable begins in just 11 days. The explanatory memorandum says that passengers are expected to benefit from the relief contained in the legislation by retaining good levels of historic connectivity, but also points out the downside of this provision: a potential negative impact on the marketplace.
The regulations are important to enable more airlines to deliver realistic winter schedules, and should minimise the cancellations and delays that have blighted the industry over the past few years. As I referenced earlier, many of those problems were predicted and avoidable: we cannot hollow out a skilled workforce with security requirements and expect there to be no impact on the consumer. Can the Minister update me on the work the Government have done to strengthen consumer rights, ensuring that passengers are paid compensation and refunds that they are entitled to in a timely fashion? We know that many airlines sit on tens of millions of pounds-worth of vouchers that were claimed during the pandemic, which are due to run out for customers.
These measures were brought in under exceptional circumstances. In a previous debate of this nature with one of the Minister’s predecessors back in 2021, it was said that it would take until 2023 for air traffic volumes to increase back to 2019 levels. I believe the current figure is that, on average, we are at around 88% of those 2019 levels. Do the Government have a plan for what  they will do in March 2024, four years after the first debate of this nature took place? The sector has still not bounced back fully.
In May this year, I raised the point that the Government’s approach was a very short-term one and, even taking that into consideration, impact assessments were not being fully carried out. The Minister at the time assured me that the Government would continue to monitor impacts as they went. Have they been doing so, and what are their findings? I am still keen to see a retrospective assessment of the impact of the measures to ensure that these steps are proportionate—neither too harsh nor too weak. Have the extraordinary circumstances we found ourselves in in 2020 now become the norm in the aviation sector? Earlier this year, the Minister suggested that there would be a consultation on slots reform later in the year. Could I be updated on the progress of that consultation?
I have previously raised—and will continue to raise—the issue of airspace modernisation, which I know is something the Minister was keen on when he held that post. That issue needs to be addressed strategically, so when will we see more progress on it? We could cut carbon tomorrow by 10%, 20% or 30% if we upgraded our airspace. We have an analogue system in a digital age. As passenger demand is still in a recovery phase and we feel the hangover of the covid pandemic industry-wide, it is more important than ever to consider ways to future-proof our airspace and achieve lower emissions in the process.

Mike Penning: I am thrilled that this statutory instrument is being taken in the House—where I can talk about it—rather than up on the Committee corridor, because I would probably not have been selected to sit on that Committee.
On slots, my constituents are very concerned at the moment, not least about Luton airport, which has blighted my constituency with its overflying. That does not affect the town of Luton at all, even though the airport is owned by Luton Council. The flights massively affect the northern part of my constituency, particularly Markyate, Flamstead and the Gaddesdens.
Of course, we have a terrible situation at the moment with thousands of cars still trapped at Luton airport after the horrendous fire there. My constituents still cannot get to their vehicles, and they do not know when they will be able to. Flights are arriving and taking off, but there are still massive problems with parking, because the airport was never designed to be the size it is now.
I rise to speak on this because the Government have made a decision—I am pleased it was called in; and the decision was not made by Luton Council—that there will be a massive expansion of flights from Luton airport. I appreciate that this is not in the Minister’s portfolio, but I used to be the shadow Minister, and I know how it is for someone on the Front Bench: this may not be in his portfolio, but I am afraid he is going to cop it. It is a ridiculous decision to allow Luton airport to expand when there are so many complaints from residents not from Luton. We have seen the problem with the fire, but the airport is just not designed to be this size, and it is not geographically suitable.
I am not a hypocrite. Have I flown from Luton airport in the past? Yes, I have.

Mike Kane: What has this got to do with slots?

Mike Penning: I hate to say this to the shadow Minister, but this is about slots at Luton airport—in a Labour-controlled constituency—which I thought he might be interested in, because my constituents really are.
I just want to put on the record that increased slots will cause increased pollution and increased noise for my constituents. The decision to allow increased number of flights—the expansion will almost double Luton airport—was fundamentally opposed by me, and it will be a very sad day when it goes ahead.

Eleanor Laing: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Gavin Newlands: I have been so looking forward to this debate—now an annual debate—on airport slots. It was very good of the Leader of the House to invite us into the big room to discuss it, although I am not sure how much this will pad out this Session of Parliament, to be perfectly honest. I have spoken about this issue many times before. I will not be speaking for long, because of my voice and, ironically, because I am supposed to be meeting an airline as we speak.
The other reason I will not be speaking for long is that this is to do with the eight slot co-ordinated airports, not one of which is in Scotland. However, we clearly have a huge interest in this with domestic flights. Indeed, if the Government were to bring forward legislation on guaranteed slots for domestic travel, particularly to London airports from Glasgow airport in my constituency, I would be grateful indeed.
Clearly, we are not going to oppose this motion. The Government are displaying uncharacteristic common sense in this motion, so it is one we will be supporting.

Mike Penning: Shocking.

Gavin Newlands: Indeed. It chills me to the bone to support Tory legislation, but here I am doing just that.
I will not repeat all the questions asked by the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane). They included a question on consumer rights, which he so skilfully shoehorned into a debate on airport slots, so I congratulate him on that. In particular, he raised the issue of airspace modernisation, which I have raised a number of times over the years and have pushed this Government on. They really need to get a grip on modernisation and push on, but I look forward to the Minister’s answer. [Interruption.] I hope he is paying attention because I am about to sit down. We will support him, and I look forward to his answers to hon. Members’ questions.

Wera Hobhouse: We Liberal Democrats were supportive of relaxing the 20:80 rule during covid; we could not have allowed airlines to fly empty flights just so they could keep their slots. The situation is now more complex. The dysfunction in the aviation industry now is just as much about managerial capacity failings as it is about the problems stemming from the pandemic.
There have been numerous allegations of abuse of the temporary rules by some airlines to flex their muscles in the marketplace. We must guard against anti-competitive practices, which make it hard for new entrants to enter the market. Alleged attempts to hoard valuable Heathrow slots have an impact on the availability, choice and price of flights. Airlines, airports and travel operators are one of the biggest single contributors to global emissions. It is crucial that we ensure that flights are taking off only when there is proper demand for them.
There has been recovery in passenger demand, but there is continued uncertainty and a lack of resilience in the industry. Recruitment remains a challenge. Demand on some routes remains below pre-pandemic levels, and changes to our working patterns have caused a drop in business travel. We must accept that these new patterns are the norm. The motion proposes a package of measures for the winter 2023 season that lets the normal 80:20 “use it or lose it” rule stay. However, there remains some limited flexibility for airlines to keep hold of their carrier slots at airports through a small pre-season hand-back allowance of 5%, and a continuation of the previously adopted justified non-utilisation of slots measures.
Although we are broadly supportive of the Government’s plans, we are concerned that there has not been parity of Government support for public transport. The rail industry and public transport such as buses are also facing changed markets. Railways still face a £2 billion annual fares shortfall from pre-covid days that the Government are unwilling to fill. The bus and coach industry is experiencing driver shortages. There is no justification for the Government to protect just one industry from inefficiencies and uncertainties in the market, and they must outline a timeline for when the covid mitigations given to airlines will come to an end. Why prioritise aviation over other modes of transportation? Airlines need clarity and time to prepare, but there must come a point when the Government tell industry that it needs to get on with things itself.

Jesse Norman: It is a delight to wind up this debate, and I thank colleagues who have spoken in what have been brief but deep and thoughtful exchanges. The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) rightly pointed to the anti-competitive potential of these measures, and also highlighted their modesty and, therefore, the sensitivities—she is absolutely right about that. She is also right in her concern about ghost flights. At the risk of violently agreeing across the Chamber, I think she is also right on the question of how long these measures will continue for. I will address that issue further in my remarks.
The SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), was right to point out that there is no direct Scottish interest in this, and I thank him, as I thank the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), for supporting this Conservative legislation. I hope it becomes a habit for the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, as it has done for his former colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron)—I think that is a useful development in SNP politics.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning)—[Interruption.] That is what I said. I said my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead, as the record will show. I was very sorry to hear again about the situation that his constituents have faced in relation to what happened at Luton. I absolutely take on board, and the House will have noted, his comments and concerns about expansion and its impact locally. He will appreciate that, as with Active Travel, the bus and coach sectors, and other items raised in the debate, that issue has nothing to do with the subject of this debate, and he was rightly critical of those who would crowbar in things that are not relevant. However, the concern of any colleague is always relevant if it is a direct constituency matter. He was right to raise it and I thank him for that.
I thank the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East for his support. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead said, the joy of having this debate on the Floor of the House of Commons is that a wider range of colleagues can come and express a concern, and we can shine a little light on the statutory legislative process, which is of enormous importance to the conduct of this House and the two Chambers of Parliament.
The hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East asked about the metrics for use in relation to non-utilisation. Those are set out in the excitingly entitled “Principles of slot allocation” document at section 8.8, which concerns the “Justified non-utilisation of slots”, and those are the rules. To respond to his question about slots, obviously there is a consultation to be launched in due course, but those are the rules as they stand.
In relation to work on consumer rights, my right hon. Friend will be aware that on 27 June 2023 the Government published our response to the aviation consumer policy reform consultation, which set out legislative reform and non-legislative measures to ensure that passengers receive the best service possible. Among the non-legislative measures is a considerable range of efforts to work with industry on a variety of measures designed to accelerate and speed up the protection of those rights. He is absolutely right.
In relation to the use of these measures in future, Baroness Vere of Norbiton, the aviation Minister, said in the House of Lords recently that she was asking herself the question as to when these measures would wind up, and she hoped it would be soon. I think that represents the Government’s position.
It is true that we have a consultation planned on slots reform. Members will also note that the level of consultation that informs this set of measures is well spelled out in the explanatory memorandum to the legislation, and that sets out in some detail what conversations and discussions have been had with the industry, and it provides a fairly compelling background to these modest but flexible measures.

Bob Stewart: I thank my right hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene. I am one of those people who came in here just to listen, because this debate was not being held in a dusty corridor somewhere upstairs—I am here to learn. I understand from my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel  Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) that the Ministry decides the number of slots, but who decides who gets those slots? Is it the airport or some other body?

Jesse Norman: I had sat down, but I am happy to take a late question from my colleague. The number of slots derives from historical control over and entitlement to slots at existing airports, but there are also mechanisms for reallocating slots that have been handed back and for allocating slots when they become available. Those are conducted by an independent process and reviewed by an independent process, and there are no plans in this legislation to make any changes to that.

Mike Penning: Going back to my speech earlier and the increase in slots at Luton airport, can the Minister indicate when the increase in flights will start to occur, so that I can inform my constituents how much of their life is going to be blighted even more by the flights from Luton airport?

Jesse Norman: I am not sure I quite caught the force of the question, because I was being interrupted when my right hon. Friend spoke.

Mike Penning: What are the timescales for the increase in slots from Luton airport, now that the Government have given permission for the expansion of Luton airport? That will have a massive impact on my constituents, and I would like to inform them factually about what is going on.

Jesse Norman: Existing slots will follow the procedures laid out in the legislation. As regards future slots, they will be allocated according to the consultation that we will be launching shortly. I should say that this is the last intervention I will take, Madam Deputy Speaker, since I had sat down before the two previous ones.
Question put and agreed to.

Business without Debate

Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority

Ordered,
That Lucy Powell be appointed to the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority in place of Thangam Debbonaire, until the end of the present Parliament, in pursuance of paragraph 1(d) of Schedule 3 to the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, as amended.—(Penny Mordaunt.)

Rosie Winterton: Order. The House will now be suspended pending the announcement of the results of the Select Committee Chair elections. The Division bells will be rung when the House is ready to resume.
Sitting suspended.
On resuming—

Nigel Evans: We now have the results of the election of Select Committee Chairs.
In the Business and Trade Committee Chair election, 471 votes were cast, 10 of which were invalid. The counting went to two rounds. There were 430 active votes in the second round, excluding those ballot papers whose preferences had been exhausted. The quota to be reached was therefore 216 votes. I can announce that Liam Byrne was elected Chair with 216 votes.
In the Petitions Committee Chair election, 467 votes were cast, eight of which were invalid. The counting went to two rounds. There were 433 active votes in the second round excluding those ballot papers whose preferences had been exhausted. The quota to be reached was therefore 217 votes. I can announce that Cat Smith was elected Chair with 227 votes.
In the Committee on Standards Chair election, 471 votes were cast, 14 of which were invalid. The quota to be reached was therefore 229 votes. I can announce that Ms Harriet Harman was elected Chair with 341 votes.
All three Chairs will take up their posts immediately and I congratulate them on their election. The results of the counts were under the alternative vote system and they will be made available as soon as possible in the Vote Office and be published on the internet.

South Fylde Line

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Gagan Mohindra.)

Mark Menzies: Mr Deputy Speaker, it is a great pleasure to be holding this debate with a fellow Lancashire Member of Parliament in the Chair. In fact, we have gone from one transport debate to another, albeit with a rather large gap in between. As a Lancashire MP yourself, you are more than well aware of the issues on our county’s rail network and of the need for modernisation of the infrastructure and rolling stock. Indeed, you have fought diligently on behalf of your constituents for exactly the improvements that I am fighting for for mine.
Today, I am pleased to be able to raise the subject of the South Fylde line. It is raised repeatedly not only on the doorsteps, but at local events and in written correspondence. Just standing on the platform at Preston station, people come up to me and say, “We need to do better than this.”
Throughout my time as Member of Parliament, I have fought to improve services. In this, we have seen progress. The dilapidated Pacer trains, which used to deposit waste directly on to the tracks, are thankfully a thing of the past. In 2018, I was delighted to reopen the modernised Kirkham and Wesham station following the installation of a new platform and two lifts serving it, providing, at long last, a station that was accessible to all.

Bob Stewart: I thank my really good friend for allowing me to intervene. May I say that I am delighted to hear that news? I last went to that station in July 1969 when I was going to the nearby Weeton camp. I have to say that it was showing slight age then, and so, some 50 years later, I am really glad that it has been modernised.

Mark Menzies: Colonel Bob, not only has it been modernised, but I still speak to constituents who remember you passing through in 1969. Once my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath—

Bob Stewart: Beckenham.

Mark Menzies: Sorry. Once my right hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) has passed through, he is never forgotten.
The holy grail remains, however, the doubling of services on the line through the installation of a passing loop, and I am concerned that efforts in that area have, frankly, stalled. In June 2020, I submitted a full restoring your railway bid to double train services on the South Fylde line. The bid was one of 50 submitted, with the then Chancellor, now the Prime Minister, selecting it to be taken forward with Government funding to help to put together a strategic outline business case.
The SOBC was submitted in November 2021, and since then there has been no further progress or communication from the Department. My fellow bid partners and I feel slightly abandoned, with even the formal email address of restoring your railway now closed. My purpose today is therefore to seek assurances  that the project continues to have the Government’s backing. The years of hard work that went into reaching that stage must not be allowed to fall by the wayside. Earlier this year, I launched the campaign to get the South Fylde line back on track.
I will give some context to where we find ourselves today. First opened in the 1840s, a little over a decade on from Stephenson’s Rocket, the history of the South Fylde line parallels the story of Victorian Britain and our railways more generally. Major expansion came in the latter decades of the 1800s, with new stations opening to serve the booming Victorian holiday industry. That was growing in Fylde, not just in the beach resorts and the residential communities that sprung up alongside them. They provided vital links for those commuting to Liverpool, Greater Manchester and the great mill towns of east Lancashire, where industry was booming.
The post-war era saw our railways enter a period of decline, with the rise of cars and dwindling passenger numbers, and of course Dr Beeching’s cuts would soon follow. Despite that, the South Fylde line survived as a two-track line until the 1980s, when the axe finally fell and the line was reduced to a single track capable of serving one train an hour in each direction. Recent years have seen something of a consensus reached around Beeching and the period of his cutbacks, and the closures that started with his report: they were a mistake. To echo the Prime Minister’s recent words, they were an example of an “old consensus” that favoured cars over public transport.
As the Minister knows from our correspondence on the topic, the South Fylde line falls far short of what is satisfactory, and is even further from being a good service. Reliability is a major issue, with one delay having an impact on services for the rest of the day, and a single track is neither the only issue nor the sole reason for the reliability issues. Be it staff sickness, driver shortages, faulty trains or signalling issues, Fylde’s commuters have heard it all. On a weekday evening, rail replacement services have become an increasingly common occurrence, turning a 20-minute train journey from Lytham to Preston into one lasting almost an hour.
In addition, Northern cut the frequency of weekend services in August, the peak of the summer tourist season, for reasons that remain unclear to me. Recent data from On Time Trains listed St Annes-on-the-Sea as the 2,204th ranked station for reliability, with all stations located beyond the line’s division at Kirkham and Wesham ranking similarly. Remarkably, that is an improvement from August, when the station fell outside the top 2,500, out of just 2,617 open railway stations across the UK. That is miserable reading for Fylde’s commuters and the many people who choose Fylde as a holiday destination. The train, I am afraid, is an unreliable option for them.

Scott Benton: My hon. Friend is articulating very well the problems on the line regarding punctuality, which we have seen for far too long. Of course, our aspiration for the South Fylde line is not just to improve punctuality but to double the number of trains that run on the line every hour. In both our constituencies, that would be of huge benefit to local tourism businesses in terms of creating jobs, inward  investment and growth in our local economy. We both worked so hard to get the feasibility funding that was delivered now over three years ago. Would he urge our brilliant rail Minister to do everything that he can to try to look at creative solutions around the capacity issues at Preston, so that we can finally take the project forward and both our constituencies can benefit?

Mark Menzies: My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. Blackpool South gets huge numbers of visitors. Blackpool pleasure beach has its own train station, yet people choose not to take the train to one of the biggest visitor attractions in the UK; they come by other means. It is absolutely ludicrous. It is a real privilege to be able to welcome my hon. Friend, as he rows in behind my ongoing campaign for the South Fylde line. It is great when colleagues are working together for the same cause; it adds huge value.
As the SOBC pointed out, the rankings are based only on services that are formally recorded as cancelled. Services turned around before reaching the end of the line are not included, yet at Blackpool South, between March 2019 and March 2020, this occurred 173 times—the equivalent of 9.5 days-worth of services that did not complete the route. The problem has not gone away. For the stations not served, these are effectively cancellations, yet they do not appear in the statistics as such. Official figures are therefore significantly understating the problem.
HS2 may no longer be coming to Preston, but links across Lancashire and to nearby cities such as Liverpool and Manchester remain important. In addition, the west coast main line continues to offer frequent and relatively fast routes to Glasgow, Edinburgh, Birmingham and London. The cost of those trains is such that most people reserve seats on specific trains to have the certainty they need about their arrival time, which they simply do not have on a South Fylde line service.
The line travels through the heart of my constituency and we are deeply proud of it. We have several active friends groups, who work tirelessly to improve stations such as Lytham, St Anne’s-on-the-Sea and Squires Gate. I want to see more people on the trains, so that they can see and appreciate the work of the friends groups. One need only read local author Steve Garrill’s “Walks From The South Fylde Line”, or Community Rail Lancashire’s “Discover the South Fylde Line” to discover the trove of activities, be they leisure, cultural or entertainment, within reach of the line. Whether relaxing on St Annes beach and walking over the sand dunes, taking in the estuary views from Lytham Green, or testing your golfing skills at the world-class Royal Lytham, coastal Fylde has so much to offer and is a magnet for day-trippers and holidaymakers alike. Beyond Lytham St Annes is Blackpool pleasure beach, one of the country’s biggest visitor attractions. We also have a thriving night-time economy. All these activities are served by the unreliable and infrequent service on the South Fylde line.
As well as its fantastic hospitality and tourism offering, Fylde is a vibrant economic hub, and the rail line that serves it is vital for countless people commuting into or around Fylde and on to destinations beyond. A short walk from Salwick station, we have Springfields, for 75 years the home of British nuclear fuel manufacturing and a site that is primed to grow with the industry’s expansion in the drive for net zero. This season, AFC Fylde has returned to the National league—the fifth tier of  English football—swelling crowds. Indeed, one of my London-based researchers told me about his experience of leaving a mid-week match at the start of injury time in the hope of catching the 9.30 pm train, missing the train by mere seconds, and instead having an hour’s wait on the platform for the next one. Similarly, supporters of nearby Blackpool and Preston North End will have had frustrating experiences getting to and from matches, despite the clubs’ stadiums lying a short distance from the South Fylde line.
I know from my time on the Transport Committee that my hon. Friend the Minister is passionate and has fought to ensure that his corner of East Sussex is served by a service that meets the needs of his constituents. I am privileged to have responding to this debate a Minister who understands the issues. When we served together on that Committee, he was never frightened of challenging the industry and holding it to account, and shining a light on shoddy, inadequate services. He does that for his constituents; I am doing it for mine.
Let us consider a comparison between Bexhill in the south-east of England, and Fylde, Lancashire. Bexhill has hourly trains to both London and Brighton, doubling to two in each direction during peak hours, with several additional trains to Eastbourne, Hastings and Ashford International. Battle sees twice-hourly services to London and Hastings, with an additional London train service running during peak times. Even Robertsbridge in my hon. Friend the Minister’s constituency—a village that, with a population of just over 2,000, is comparable to Wrea Green in my constituency—is connected to both London and Hastings by two trains an hour in each direction during peak times, with just 1% of services cancelled. That is the kind of connectivity that the Minister enjoys—he has fought for it—but the kind of which Fylde constituents can only dream. I am sure that he shares my resolve to put that right.
In response to the recent reliability issues that I mentioned, I ran a survey of my constituents to seek feedback on that topic. I will share a couple of examples that are representative of wider feedback and illustrate my point. These are the comments of a constituent:
“I’d love to be able to travel from Ansdell to my office in Liverpool but, with one train an hour meaning often poor connections—and then that one train being prone to cancellations, it’s rare that I feel I can risk it, so end up driving to Preston, which is longer and parking more expensive.”
That does nothing to help our carbon footprint.
Another said:
“If the trains were reliable then I would use them but, after having to find contingency plans at the last moment on too many occasions I no longer put myself through the stress of using them. Unfortunately, I often have to drive to Preston to rescue stranded family members when trains are cancelled with no reason! The train timetable we have at the moment fails to connect with the train timetables going North and South. If I am going to London I have to spend almost an hour waiting on a very cold and miserable platform and the same happens when I return. Likewise when travelling to Lancaster and further north. Why would I do it? I would park my car at Preston station and drive.”
That is just madness. It all comes at an environmental and financial cost, not to mention that it increases traffic on our roads at busy times. The inefficiency of having to drive to the mainline station at Preston, a dozen or so miles away, will not be lost on my hon. Friend the Minister. Passenger numbers are relatively low, which I contend is a direct result of the infrequency  and unreliability of the trains, and has, I believe, led to under-investment in the line—a vicious circle that we must now break. If levelling up is to be more than a slogan, people in Fylde should not have to continue putting up with such abject service.
Let us look to the future and possible solutions. To refer back to the Prime Minister, I wholeheartedly agree with his statement that:
“What we really need is better transport connections in the north.”
The cap on bus fares is fantastic, and I am grateful to the Government for their investment in Fylde’s roads. The new Preston west distributor road—the Edith Rigby Way—has opened, along with a new junction to the M55, while the M55 link road, known as the Moss Road, and the A585 Singleton bypass, are fast approaching completion. However, as I mentioned at the start of the debate, the holy grail remains a return to twice-hourly trains on the South Fylde line. The most efficient way to achieve that is the installation of a passing loop around Ansdell, enabling trains to pass each other roughly halfway through the line’s route. We are not asking for anything extravagant—indeed, many of my constituents still remember a time when that line was dual track and services were more frequent. There was not a passing loop: the whole thing was dual track. As such, I believe that my ask on behalf of my constituents is modest, realistic and, above all, deliverable in a timely way.
The scrapping of the northern leg of HS2 in favour of investing in the road and rail connections that link our communities in the north delivers a great new chance to see this project become a reality. With £2.5 billion being allocated to local authorities to spend on projects in these areas, there is an opportunity to deliver lasting change for communities, such as delivering on the levelling up promises of recent years. As the Minister will recall, when I wrote to him this summer, one key obstacle he mentioned was the need to reserve capacity at Preston to allow certain platforms to be used for future HS2 services. That problem has now been made obsolete by the Prime Minister’s recent decision.
The previously submitted bid, which dates back to 2021, gave three options for the project, ranging from £23.9 million to £47.3 million. Those figures did not include the redevelopment of the former Royal Mail parcel platform at Preston for passenger services, which would instead have been carried out as part of HS2’s arrival, nor did they account for the inflation of the past two years, which has been particularly acute in the transport construction sector. I welcome that money, but with it being divided across the country and costs no doubt having risen, the Government may well still need to step in to support and help fund this critical project.
Rail connectivity is both our past and our future. Investment in it can help deliver economic opportunities for the future of Fylde’s hospitality, manufacturing and wider business sectors. The Government have been making that point in recent weeks, and I hope their words are followed by deeds. The passing loop is a project that we are crying out for, but it can become a reality only with the backing of both Government and local authorities. I hope that I can count on my hon. Friend the excellent Minister to help get the South Fylde line back on track. Let’s get on with it.

Huw Merriman: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) on securing this debate on enhancements to passenger services on the South Fylde line. I really do appreciate his continued support for improving that line and the campaigns he has led on behalf of his constituents. He has been particularly kind to me, so let me reply in kind.
I served alongside my hon. Friend on the Transport Select Committee. He works incredibly hard, not just for his own constituents and their transport needs but for all constituents across this country, and I certainly appreciate that work. He now holds me to account, and he does so particularly well. I am grateful to him, and to Community Rail Lancashire and the South Fylde Line Community Rail Partnership, for all their work on the “Discover the South Fylde Line” guide. I am also grateful to the local volunteers involved in revamping the cycle shelter at St Annes-on-the-Sea station as part of its 150th anniversary back in the summer. There is more that my hon. Friend does, and I am keen to help him do more—he will know that that is genuinely meant.
I also understand the points that he makes about the reliability of the services on that line, their frequency and the ultimate knock-on effects for passengers, particularly those looking to make their connections to the west coast main line. I acknowledge that cancellations continue to be a challenge for Northern, largely due to sickness rates being higher than average, training requirements to bring more drivers into service, and aspects of Sunday working. I assure my hon. Friend and the entire House that Northern recognises that challenge and is continuing to progress its improvement plans; admittedly, though, some of these aspects will be addressed only through wider reform. My hon. Friend will be aware that, with Sunday working being voluntary on Northern, we will have to reform the railway to ensure it works in the way that its passengers insist it should work. That is currently with the trade unions, and we are looking to them to play their part so that we can deliver a service that is fit for this century.
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of more frequent and reliable rail services to support his area’s visitor economy, and I hear the call from my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) in that regard. They both make the entirely reasonable point that relatively low passenger numbers on the South Fylde line may be due in part to a lack of reliability and therefore of trust in the line’s services. It is a cycle we need to break and for which we need to find a solution.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde for sponsoring a bid to my Department’s restoring your railway programme. As he obviously knows—indeed, he referred it, but for good order I repeat it—the bid calls for the introduction of a passing loop on the South Fylde line to allow for the doubling of services from one train per hour to two trains per hour. I hear his call, and I want to assist him. He is right that we have had a  particular challenge at Preston. We have discussed that, and he has bought forward solutions. I also hear him when he says that some of those issues may go away with the change to HS2, and I am particularly keen to see if we now have a solution that we can put in place. These matters will take some time, as we work out the consequences of the decision to move away from the final phases of HS2 towards Network North. However, I can tell him that I will be looking with my officials to see if we now have a solution, and if that is the case, I want to be in a position to help him. I am not yet in a position to confirm the outcome of the bid, but I will be in contact with my hon. Friend in due course, and I am very happy to meet him so that he can challenge me and officials if he disagrees with our conclusions.
My hon. Friend is completely right to highlight the comments by the Prime Minister about the need for better transport connections across the north. That is exactly why we have announced the Network North strategy, which will deliver improvements to various transport modes in the north of England, not just on rail. I know my hon. Friend and other hon. Members will have welcomed the announcement of a brand-new £2.5 billion fund to transform local transport in 14 rural counties, smaller cities and towns in every part of the north. That will cover the big city regions, but also areas outside them. Notably, it could include more trams for Blackpool.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the Prime Minister’s announcement on HS2 opens up the conversation and allows us to explore possibilities for transport projects that will be locally led and the effects of which will be more locally felt. I am very keen to work with him, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South and other hon. Members on how we harness those possibilities and target improvements where they feel they are most needed. I also want to highlight that my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary has agreed that Cottam Parkway station on the Preston to Blackpool line should develop its full business case under the transforming cities fund. This is another example of how this Government are delivering for the north of England.
To conclude, I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde, who I believe may be about to stand up and intervene—[Interruption.] No, I got that wrong; he is just excited that I am getting him to the end, as I am sure you are, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank him for securing this debate, and for all he does to get everything his constituents need; he is assiduous in that regard. I want to assure him that I take on board the points he makes about the South Fylde line, and that my door is open to him to come and discuss the wider transport opportunities that will benefit his constituents under Network North. I also assure him that the loop and the issue at Preston will be looked at again, and I hope we will find a solution that will finally deliver for him and his constituents.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.